welcome to my lawn

I think my effort posting is going to use the tag #talk about Utopia enough and you might just get there

[mysharona1987]

[temanfromblowysnorter]

The Reasons Why I hate Christianity:

Christians have committed multiple genocides throughout history.

The bible condones slavery, genocide and owning uterus havers as property.

Entire cultures have been destroyed and colonised due to Christianity.

Christianity has left people with trauma.

Christianity teaches people to be ashamed of normal things such as their own bodies, sexual feelings, being queer and being disabled.

Christianity has been and is being used to spread fascism.

Christianity actively doesn't promote critical thinking and sets you up to be subservient to a master without even questioning their decisions or doctrine.

Christian organisations constantly demand and steal money from people.

Christianity gives people free passes to be bigots.

Christianity stops people from believing in and understanding basic science.

Christianity makes people so incredibly focused on the afterlife, which can stop them from caring as much about problems and other people in the world.

Christianity was and still is being used to oppress people.

Rapists can get away with their crimes because of Christianity.

Christianity teaches people that they are inherently evil.

[wizardarchetypes]

it’s sooo funny when rude customers encounter employees who can deny them service for the first time.

i was working at a little cafe where I could deny service over bad behavior, harassment etc. & mask mandates had just ended a week before & already people were being weird about me still wearing mine—an N95, the kind shaped kinda like a duckbill.

so this man walked in, looked at me sooo scathingly, laughed at me, and said “damn. never known a woman to choose…practicality over looks.”

And I just said, “oh. you can go, you’re not getting a drink.” And he said, “what???”

I said, “sir, you just walked in at 6 am & called women impractical and me ugly in one sentence.”

And he was so astonished he didn’t even argue he just turned around and left 💀🙏🏻 it was like he suddenly became self aware

[carolinalaurel]

One summer I was running ferry rides across a lake so people could see the waterfalls without walking 6 miles when a guy snapped my bra strap as he was boarding the boat. So i immediately threw him off, he started yelling for my manager, my boss cheerfully informed him that, yeah, she’s the captain of the boat and she can kick off anyone she wants. He goes to storm off, looks expectantly at his girlfriend, and she just goes, “Well, I’M not walking six miles, Michael! I’ll meet you back at the car!” and sits right back down!!!!

The expression on his face when he was told that he couldn’t get on the boat, then immediately told that his girlfriend was ditching him? PRICELESS. he just blinked at her and then stormed off like a child. I gave her a free hat and was like maybe rethink this relationship…….

[hickeywiththegoodhair]

i once had this fucker come up to order a beer. while i pour it he shows me the wanky fucking chemical structure tattoo on his arm and he’s like “hey. you know what this is” i was like “nah sorry” (never cared abt chemistry in school, plus having to look at a some rando’s pretentious tattoo gives me the douche chills). he decides to respond with “heh. you must not read many books”

i immediately stop pouring his beer. i reply: “heh. you must not want this beer.” thirsty boy immediately starts groveling like a worm “please please no i do want the beer im sorry im sorry” believe me when i say it was one of the most pathetic things ive ever witnessed

[lezbadeez]

gotta love people immediately backpedaling when they realise that there are Consequences To Being Mean

[lastvalyrian]

I genuinely believe that part of why it has become so normalized to be openly callous and evil in politics is that customer service culture has trained affluent people that they can treat everyone they consider beneath them however they want and still be treated kindly.

[athena5898]

More like the other way around. Modern politics were always going to get this way because the system enforces the type of behavior that leads to customer service culture. Most western systems are designed to create power over others, which means asshole behavior.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I love this and the idea of how common and effective this could be in a post money society.

Right now there's an expectation from most owners that it's your job to do whatever you can to get those precious dollars. And that's largely accepted because yeah obviously the business needs money to survive, and you need to keep your job for the same reason. But in a world where that's not true (or to a smaller degree where the boss cares more about the employees than profit maximization) these kinds of consequences could be the standard method of attitude correction.

When your job is just what you do and not how you support yourself, it becomes way easier to withhold that work. When you take away the profit incentive, it becomes so much fucking easier to freely associate based on your values and who you want to do business with instead of just chasing those with the thickest wallets.

[captainjonnitkessler]

The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.

[cosettetape1]

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

Put another way, it doesn't mean "blow up the foundation & leave it libertarian", it just means "let's assume starting from scratch instead of incrementalism."

[convulsive-madness]

"Just look at the ideas that I have in the most positive light possible, please." how about I don't do that and instead think of all the ways that your terrible ideas could go horribly wrong. I.E. the most likely scenario.

[an-colm-fuinniuil]

Also.

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

"There should be no more police or prisons or family units ever!!" "uh huh sure sweet dreams sweetie do you want your pacy before I tuck you in"

[izandai]

"Abolish" is a word with a meaning. It doesn't mean "massively reduce the prevalence of" and it doesn't mean "overhaul the implementation of" and it doesn't mean "render obsolete and unnecessary". It means "completely do away with". It means "get rid of". If you say you're in favor of abolishing something, anyone who isn't in the weeds on leftist terminology–meaning MOST PEOPLE–is going to think you want to summarily ban that thing at the earliest convenience.

The immediate cultural touchstone a lot of people are going to have for usage of the word "abolish" is the abolition of slavery, AKA Abolitionism. Abolitionists did not want slavery to be phased out or made less harmful or to be more restricted or better regulated, they wanted it abolished. That's why they were called Abolitionists. Don't be surprised if when you call yourself an "[X] abolitionist" people think you want to abolish [X], using the same basic definition of "abolish" that the vast majority of English speakers use. And if that's not actually what you want to do, maybe consider calling yourself something else. I sincerely think it'll help your cause.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I mostly agree with this even though I might have different politics than op. I do think there's some unrighteous dismissals happening as well.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

And related to the previous point, questions like "what do we do with all the murderers?" ignore the myriad of ways someone might get that accusation. That question is way too broad to give direct answer to.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don't think asking people extremely basic, obvious, first-order questions is some kind of trick or unfairness.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Also, I notice you complained that one counterargument is a narrow hypothetical, and the other is too broad. What does that leave? Some vague area in the middle where the logical porridge is juuuust right?

[headingtowardsdirt]

I don't love how I worded my response but I didn't say anything about being tricked. I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to perfectly prescriptive. Partially because it's just one layperson on their concept of the idea, not the legislator currently writing the letter of the law.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

Also, in regard to the specific hypotheticals. I've seen that turn into a gish gallop of increasingly unrealistic circumstances. Which tends to be more annoying than insightful. So please don't do that.

[needabetternamelater]

That's too general but getting into specifics is too specific and I've decided a prori it's going to be an increasingly unrealistic circumstance is not convincing..... 50% of the questions anyone not already a prison abolitionist has is too general, the other 50% of the questions is too specific, must all be 100% bad faith is not a great look.

[headingtowardsdirt]

In my original reply, I say the question is too broad to give a "direct" answer to, not that it couldn't be answered. This agrees with what I said in the reblog you're replying to now.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

And with regard to the specific questions part, I mention gish gallop and "every single hypothetical someone can dream up". Clearly talking about a problem with an annoying argumentative style rather than a problem with specificity itself.

[needabetternamelater]

1)I'm sorry, I fail to see the distimction in the difference between can't be directly answered and can't be answered. 2)And yet when people asked you about the general, it was too general so no, 3)50% are too general, 50% are too specific, clearly it isn't just a problem with gish galloping.

[headingtowardsdirt]

An example of what I mean by an direct vs indirect answers.

Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"

Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."

Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."

(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)

You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.

The broad point I'm trying to make is the very common sentiment of "try to be open minded". This would apply to things like, maybe the alternative to prison isn't so neat or clean to have an easy answer in every situation. It also applies to, maybe just because this person mentions a topic (that has already been mentioned in a way also not talking about it) it doesn't mean the point is actually about that topic.

[needabetternamelater]

That thing you call a direct answer? That's otherwise known as an answer. That thing you call an indirect answer is a deconstruction of the question. It is a discussion of the question. It is an analysis of the question. It is ...many things...of the question.. What it isn't an answer. Also, there is a difference between being open-minded and being so open-minded your brain falls out!...I am perfectly aware of all the talking around the question in FAQs. I know that. I'm asking random tumblr..becuase the household names do not in fact answer the question.

[headingtowardsdirt]

What do we do with all the kids DHS has locked in cages?

Direct: we leave them there

Indirect: we have to work with each child and whatever records we have to find the best situation for each one that prioritizes their safety and wellbeing

Does that example work better for you? Or are you still going to be close minded?

[needabetternamelater]

Do you see how that dorsn't work unless I already know what you want to do?

[headingtowardsdirt]

No, I don't

[needabetternamelater]

And therein is the problem. But basically, you've done the euqivalent of saying to someone asking for help with their maths homework "write numbers". or to someone asking for help with their piano practice"... "press buttons" It's nowhere near specific enough for people to do anything with and anyone who knows what you mean never needed your advice or for them to explain what you wanted them to do in the first place!

[headingtowardsdirt]

No. Here's my version of what I'm doing with your 2 examples.

"How do I complete my maths homework?"

Direct: write numbers

Indirect: you have to look at the problems and solve them based on the information provided

"How do I practice piano?"

Direct: you press keys

Indirect: you should play your scales and any pieces you're working on while paying extra attention to the more challenging parts

Do you see how because I lack specifics on what they're working on I'm not able to say exactly what they should do? I just have to give a vague outline of what is typically done. If I were teacher talking to a student, I would be able to look at the homework and walk them through the first couple problems for them to prepare them to do the rest on their own.

However, that's not the case. I have no reason to believe you're a student or a prison warden or a legislator needing guidance on a particular issue you have on your desk. I know I'm not a teacher or a legislator or a lobbyist here to give you step by step instructions on how to perfectly fix the situation we're in. We are 2 strangers on the internet philosophizing on how the world ought to be. If you ask a broad question, you get a broad answer.

And to address the specificity side of things. If you ask for help with your maths homework one problem at a time. I would be able to help you with each of those problems, but I would probably be annoyed if you insisted on me walking through all 20 problems of your homework with you. I would probably tell you to apply what you've learned around problem 3.

[captainjonnitkessler]

The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.

[cosettetape1]

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

Put another way, it doesn't mean "blow up the foundation & leave it libertarian", it just means "let's assume starting from scratch instead of incrementalism."

[convulsive-madness]

"Just look at the ideas that I have in the most positive light possible, please." how about I don't do that and instead think of all the ways that your terrible ideas could go horribly wrong. I.E. the most likely scenario.

[an-colm-fuinniuil]

Also.

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

"There should be no more police or prisons or family units ever!!" "uh huh sure sweet dreams sweetie do you want your pacy before I tuck you in"

[izandai]

"Abolish" is a word with a meaning. It doesn't mean "massively reduce the prevalence of" and it doesn't mean "overhaul the implementation of" and it doesn't mean "render obsolete and unnecessary". It means "completely do away with". It means "get rid of". If you say you're in favor of abolishing something, anyone who isn't in the weeds on leftist terminology–meaning MOST PEOPLE–is going to think you want to summarily ban that thing at the earliest convenience.

The immediate cultural touchstone a lot of people are going to have for usage of the word "abolish" is the abolition of slavery, AKA Abolitionism. Abolitionists did not want slavery to be phased out or made less harmful or to be more restricted or better regulated, they wanted it abolished. That's why they were called Abolitionists. Don't be surprised if when you call yourself an "[X] abolitionist" people think you want to abolish [X], using the same basic definition of "abolish" that the vast majority of English speakers use. And if that's not actually what you want to do, maybe consider calling yourself something else. I sincerely think it'll help your cause.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I mostly agree with this even though I might have different politics than op. I do think there's some unrighteous dismissals happening as well.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

And related to the previous point, questions like "what do we do with all the murderers?" ignore the myriad of ways someone might get that accusation. That question is way too broad to give direct answer to.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don't think asking people extremely basic, obvious, first-order questions is some kind of trick or unfairness.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Also, I notice you complained that one counterargument is a narrow hypothetical, and the other is too broad. What does that leave? Some vague area in the middle where the logical porridge is juuuust right?

[headingtowardsdirt]

I don't love how I worded my response but I didn't say anything about being tricked. I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to perfectly prescriptive. Partially because it's just one layperson on their concept of the idea, not the legislator currently writing the letter of the law.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

Also, in regard to the specific hypotheticals. I've seen that turn into a gish gallop of increasingly unrealistic circumstances. Which tends to be more annoying than insightful. So please don't do that.

[needabetternamelater]

That's too general but getting into specifics is too specific and I've decided a prori it's going to be an increasingly unrealistic circumstance is not convincing..... 50% of the questions anyone not already a prison abolitionist has is too general, the other 50% of the questions is too specific, must all be 100% bad faith is not a great look.

[headingtowardsdirt]

In my original reply, I say the question is too broad to give a "direct" answer to, not that it couldn't be answered. This agrees with what I said in the reblog you're replying to now.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

And with regard to the specific questions part, I mention gish gallop and "every single hypothetical someone can dream up". Clearly talking about a problem with an annoying argumentative style rather than a problem with specificity itself.

[needabetternamelater]

1)I'm sorry, I fail to see the distimction in the difference between can't be directly answered and can't be answered. 2)And yet when people asked you about the general, it was too general so no, 3)50% are too general, 50% are too specific, clearly it isn't just a problem with gish galloping.

[headingtowardsdirt]

An example of what I mean by an direct vs indirect answers.

Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"

Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."

Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."

(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)

You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.

The broad point I'm trying to make is the very common sentiment of "try to be open minded". This would apply to things like, maybe the alternative to prison isn't so neat or clean to have an easy answer in every situation. It also applies to, maybe just because this person mentions a topic (that has already been mentioned in a way also not talking about it) it doesn't mean the point is actually about that topic.

[needabetternamelater]

That thing you call a direct answer? That's otherwise known as an answer. That thing you call an indirect answer is a deconstruction of the question. It is a discussion of the question. It is an analysis of the question. It is ...many things...of the question.. What it isn't an answer. Also, there is a difference between being open-minded and being so open-minded your brain falls out!...I am perfectly aware of all the talking around the question in FAQs. I know that. I'm asking random tumblr..becuase the household names do not in fact answer the question.

[headingtowardsdirt]

What do we do with all the kids DHS has locked in cages?

Direct: we leave them there

Indirect: we have to work with each child and whatever records we have to find the best situation for each one that prioritizes their safety and wellbeing

Does that example work better for you? Or are you still going to be close minded?

[needabetternamelater]

Do you see how that dorsn't work unless I already know what you want to do?

[headingtowardsdirt]

No, I don't

[bumblebeebats]

Why is it that every time I google something like "Are olives poisonous to cats" the top results are always like "Fun fact: Cats are carnivores! This means that they eat meat. There is no reason to include olives in a cat's diet. You should feed your cat cat food, which is dry or wet food especially designed for cats. You can purchase this at a store." like is there a single person alive on the planet who's googled "Are blueberry muffins safe for cats" because they're planning on switching their cat to a muffin-only diet??? No, I'm asking because the little bastard somehow popped open the packet while I was putting away the groceries and dragged one under the couch before I could react and now I need to know if I should call the after-hours vet. "Cats should not eat spaghetti." NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!!!! "Try to keep human food away from cats." i live in a studio apartment with a completely silent and permanently hungry apex predator who has the intelligence of a toddler and the desperate Machiavellian cunning of a creature who spent his formative months on the streets. He can already open doors and he is this 👌 close to learning how to open the microwave. He is stronger than me and covered in knives. So im gonna do my best but for the moment i just need you to tell me whether this yoghurt is going to kill my son y/n

[spectralhauntings]

I've been using the pet poison hotline's poison list cause it has a search function. It also tells you whether something is mildly, moderately, or severely toxic which can be very handy! It doesn't contain like everything but it might be a good place to start, it also includes plants for fellow houseplant lovers <3

Explore Pet Poison Helpline®s vast knowledge on poisons by reviewing our pet poison list. Explore our top 10 poison and holiday poison lists

[littlemousling]

For plants specifically, there’s also a wildly detailed set of posts and listings about toxicity on the old, wonderful, Plants Are the Strangest People blog

[feminist-space]

"Stronger than me and covered in knives" 😹😻😼

[gnollgirl]

I will also point to this when people ask me "why didn't you just google it?" I did, and it told me that cats are carnivores and offered me suggestions of how to stop my cows from eating my olive trees.

[captainjonnitkessler]

The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.

[cosettetape1]

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

Put another way, it doesn't mean "blow up the foundation & leave it libertarian", it just means "let's assume starting from scratch instead of incrementalism."

[convulsive-madness]

"Just look at the ideas that I have in the most positive light possible, please." how about I don't do that and instead think of all the ways that your terrible ideas could go horribly wrong. I.E. the most likely scenario.

[an-colm-fuinniuil]

Also.

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

"There should be no more police or prisons or family units ever!!" "uh huh sure sweet dreams sweetie do you want your pacy before I tuck you in"

[izandai]

"Abolish" is a word with a meaning. It doesn't mean "massively reduce the prevalence of" and it doesn't mean "overhaul the implementation of" and it doesn't mean "render obsolete and unnecessary". It means "completely do away with". It means "get rid of". If you say you're in favor of abolishing something, anyone who isn't in the weeds on leftist terminology–meaning MOST PEOPLE–is going to think you want to summarily ban that thing at the earliest convenience.

The immediate cultural touchstone a lot of people are going to have for usage of the word "abolish" is the abolition of slavery, AKA Abolitionism. Abolitionists did not want slavery to be phased out or made less harmful or to be more restricted or better regulated, they wanted it abolished. That's why they were called Abolitionists. Don't be surprised if when you call yourself an "[X] abolitionist" people think you want to abolish [X], using the same basic definition of "abolish" that the vast majority of English speakers use. And if that's not actually what you want to do, maybe consider calling yourself something else. I sincerely think it'll help your cause.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I mostly agree with this even though I might have different politics than op. I do think there's some unrighteous dismissals happening as well.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

And related to the previous point, questions like "what do we do with all the murderers?" ignore the myriad of ways someone might get that accusation. That question is way too broad to give direct answer to.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don't think asking people extremely basic, obvious, first-order questions is some kind of trick or unfairness.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Also, I notice you complained that one counterargument is a narrow hypothetical, and the other is too broad. What does that leave? Some vague area in the middle where the logical porridge is juuuust right?

[headingtowardsdirt]

I don't love how I worded my response but I didn't say anything about being tricked. I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to perfectly prescriptive. Partially because it's just one layperson on their concept of the idea, not the legislator currently writing the letter of the law.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

Also, in regard to the specific hypotheticals. I've seen that turn into a gish gallop of increasingly unrealistic circumstances. Which tends to be more annoying than insightful. So please don't do that.

[needabetternamelater]

That's too general but getting into specifics is too specific and I've decided a prori it's going to be an increasingly unrealistic circumstance is not convincing..... 50% of the questions anyone not already a prison abolitionist has is too general, the other 50% of the questions is too specific, must all be 100% bad faith is not a great look.

[headingtowardsdirt]

In my original reply, I say the question is too broad to give a "direct" answer to, not that it couldn't be answered. This agrees with what I said in the reblog you're replying to now.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

And with regard to the specific questions part, I mention gish gallop and "every single hypothetical someone can dream up". Clearly talking about a problem with an annoying argumentative style rather than a problem with specificity itself.

[needabetternamelater]

1)I'm sorry, I fail to see the distimction in the difference between can't be directly answered and can't be answered. 2)And yet when people asked you about the general, it was too general so no, 3)50% are too general, 50% are too specific, clearly it isn't just a problem with gish galloping.

[headingtowardsdirt]

An example of what I mean by an direct vs indirect answers.

Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"

Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."

Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."

(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)

You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.

The broad point I'm trying to make is the very common sentiment of "try to be open minded". This would apply to things like, maybe the alternative to prison isn't so neat or clean to have an easy answer in every situation. It also applies to, maybe just because this person mentions a topic (that has already been mentioned in a way also not talking about it) it doesn't mean the point is actually about that topic.

[needabetternamelater]

That thing you call a direct answer? That's otherwise known as an answer. That thing you call an indirect answer is a deconstruction of the question. It is a discussion of the question. It is an analysis of the question. It is ...many things...of the question.. What it isn't an answer. Also, there is a difference between being open-minded and being so open-minded your brain falls out!...I am perfectly aware of all the talking around the question in FAQs. I know that. I'm asking random tumblr..becuase the household names do not in fact answer the question.

[headingtowardsdirt]

What do we do with all the kids DHS has locked in cages?

Direct: we leave them there

Indirect: we have to work with each child and whatever records we have to find the best situation for each one that prioritizes their safety and wellbeing

Does that example work better for you? Or are you still going to be close minded?

[wishingformemoria]

just because someone can articulate their point better doesn’t make them right, it makes them articulated. 

[wishingformemoria]

and you aren’t stupid for having trouble articulating yourself.

[andre-30008]

[notoriousmasc]

[fizzytrashcan]

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

[headingtowardsdirt]

Thanks for doing something sometimes I guess, but we're still in danger and you're just chilling out up there. You're not actually fixing the problem.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I think I improved it

[captainjonnitkessler]

The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.

[cosettetape1]

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

Put another way, it doesn't mean "blow up the foundation & leave it libertarian", it just means "let's assume starting from scratch instead of incrementalism."

[convulsive-madness]

"Just look at the ideas that I have in the most positive light possible, please." how about I don't do that and instead think of all the ways that your terrible ideas could go horribly wrong. I.E. the most likely scenario.

[an-colm-fuinniuil]

Also.

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

"There should be no more police or prisons or family units ever!!" "uh huh sure sweet dreams sweetie do you want your pacy before I tuck you in"

[izandai]

"Abolish" is a word with a meaning. It doesn't mean "massively reduce the prevalence of" and it doesn't mean "overhaul the implementation of" and it doesn't mean "render obsolete and unnecessary". It means "completely do away with". It means "get rid of". If you say you're in favor of abolishing something, anyone who isn't in the weeds on leftist terminology–meaning MOST PEOPLE–is going to think you want to summarily ban that thing at the earliest convenience.

The immediate cultural touchstone a lot of people are going to have for usage of the word "abolish" is the abolition of slavery, AKA Abolitionism. Abolitionists did not want slavery to be phased out or made less harmful or to be more restricted or better regulated, they wanted it abolished. That's why they were called Abolitionists. Don't be surprised if when you call yourself an "[X] abolitionist" people think you want to abolish [X], using the same basic definition of "abolish" that the vast majority of English speakers use. And if that's not actually what you want to do, maybe consider calling yourself something else. I sincerely think it'll help your cause.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I mostly agree with this even though I might have different politics than op. I do think there's some unrighteous dismissals happening as well.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

And related to the previous point, questions like "what do we do with all the murderers?" ignore the myriad of ways someone might get that accusation. That question is way too broad to give direct answer to.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don't think asking people extremely basic, obvious, first-order questions is some kind of trick or unfairness.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Also, I notice you complained that one counterargument is a narrow hypothetical, and the other is too broad. What does that leave? Some vague area in the middle where the logical porridge is juuuust right?

[headingtowardsdirt]

I don't love how I worded my response but I didn't say anything about being tricked. I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to perfectly prescriptive. Partially because it's just one layperson on their concept of the idea, not the legislator currently writing the letter of the law.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

Also, in regard to the specific hypotheticals. I've seen that turn into a gish gallop of increasingly unrealistic circumstances. Which tends to be more annoying than insightful. So please don't do that.

[needabetternamelater]

That's too general but getting into specifics is too specific and I've decided a prori it's going to be an increasingly unrealistic circumstance is not convincing..... 50% of the questions anyone not already a prison abolitionist has is too general, the other 50% of the questions is too specific, must all be 100% bad faith is not a great look.

[headingtowardsdirt]

In my original reply, I say the question is too broad to give a "direct" answer to, not that it couldn't be answered. This agrees with what I said in the reblog you're replying to now.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

And with regard to the specific questions part, I mention gish gallop and "every single hypothetical someone can dream up". Clearly talking about a problem with an annoying argumentative style rather than a problem with specificity itself.

[needabetternamelater]

1)I'm sorry, I fail to see the distimction in the difference between can't be directly answered and can't be answered. 2)And yet when people asked you about the general, it was too general so no, 3)50% are too general, 50% are too specific, clearly it isn't just a problem with gish galloping.

[headingtowardsdirt]

An example of what I mean by an direct vs indirect answers.

Q: "what do we do with all the murderers?"

Direct: "lock them all in prison forever."

Indirect: "we have to look at the material conditions of each individual case and work with those involved to determine what the most appropriate outcome would be in order to serve justice in a way that isn't about punishing wrongdoers."

(Note: I'm not making either of those arguments, I'm illustrating my point.)

You didn't actually say anything about specifics, basically just said "nuh uh" so there's not much rebuttal I can really do.

The broad point I'm trying to make is the very common sentiment of "try to be open minded". This would apply to things like, maybe the alternative to prison isn't so neat or clean to have an easy answer in every situation. It also applies to, maybe just because this person mentions a topic (that has already been mentioned in a way also not talking about it) it doesn't mean the point is actually about that topic.

[captainjonnitkessler]

The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.

[cosettetape1]

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

Put another way, it doesn't mean "blow up the foundation & leave it libertarian", it just means "let's assume starting from scratch instead of incrementalism."

[convulsive-madness]

"Just look at the ideas that I have in the most positive light possible, please." how about I don't do that and instead think of all the ways that your terrible ideas could go horribly wrong. I.E. the most likely scenario.

[an-colm-fuinniuil]

Also.

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

"There should be no more police or prisons or family units ever!!" "uh huh sure sweet dreams sweetie do you want your pacy before I tuck you in"

[izandai]

"Abolish" is a word with a meaning. It doesn't mean "massively reduce the prevalence of" and it doesn't mean "overhaul the implementation of" and it doesn't mean "render obsolete and unnecessary". It means "completely do away with". It means "get rid of". If you say you're in favor of abolishing something, anyone who isn't in the weeds on leftist terminology–meaning MOST PEOPLE–is going to think you want to summarily ban that thing at the earliest convenience.

The immediate cultural touchstone a lot of people are going to have for usage of the word "abolish" is the abolition of slavery, AKA Abolitionism. Abolitionists did not want slavery to be phased out or made less harmful or to be more restricted or better regulated, they wanted it abolished. That's why they were called Abolitionists. Don't be surprised if when you call yourself an "[X] abolitionist" people think you want to abolish [X], using the same basic definition of "abolish" that the vast majority of English speakers use. And if that's not actually what you want to do, maybe consider calling yourself something else. I sincerely think it'll help your cause.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I mostly agree with this even though I might have different politics than op. I do think there's some unrighteous dismissals happening as well.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

And related to the previous point, questions like "what do we do with all the murderers?" ignore the myriad of ways someone might get that accusation. That question is way too broad to give direct answer to.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I don't think asking people extremely basic, obvious, first-order questions is some kind of trick or unfairness.

Also, "abolish prison" are itself a very broad position, with broad consequences. Stands to reason that one would ask broad questions.

Frankly, if they can't - or won't - come up with answers for very common responses, that anyone could reasonably anticiapte, I think that's on them.

Similarly, family abolitionists are taking a broad stance. If their principles can't cover relatively simple hypotheticals, that's on them.

Taking someone at their word to expose flaws in their logic is not wrong.

Also, I notice you complained that one counterargument is a narrow hypothetical, and the other is too broad. What does that leave? Some vague area in the middle where the logical porridge is juuuust right?

[headingtowardsdirt]

I don't love how I worded my response but I didn't say anything about being tricked. I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to perfectly prescriptive. Partially because it's just one layperson on their concept of the idea, not the legislator currently writing the letter of the law.

Most importantly, I think it's more effective to engage in good faith discussion rather than mockery. Assuming the stance isn't immediately harmful and is coming from a place of wanting better for all.

Also, in regard to the specific hypotheticals. I've seen that turn into a gish gallop of increasingly unrealistic circumstances. Which tends to be more annoying than insightful. So please don't do that.

[needabetternamelater]

That's too general but getting into specifics is too specific and I've decided a prori it's going to be an increasingly unrealistic circumstance is not convincing..... 50% of the questions anyone not already a prison abolitionist has is too general, the other 50% of the questions is too specific, must all be 100% bad faith is not a great look.

[headingtowardsdirt]

In my original reply, I say the question is too broad to give a "direct" answer to, not that it couldn't be answered. This agrees with what I said in the reblog you're replying to now.

"I'm not saying you can't ask certain questions, more that you shouldn't expect the answer to [be] perfectly prescriptive."

And with regard to the specific questions part, I mention gish gallop and "every single hypothetical someone can dream up". Clearly talking about a problem with an annoying argumentative style rather than a problem with specificity itself.

[captainjonnitkessler]

The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.

[cosettetape1]

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

Put another way, it doesn't mean "blow up the foundation & leave it libertarian", it just means "let's assume starting from scratch instead of incrementalism."

[convulsive-madness]

"Just look at the ideas that I have in the most positive light possible, please." how about I don't do that and instead think of all the ways that your terrible ideas could go horribly wrong. I.E. the most likely scenario.

[an-colm-fuinniuil]

Also.

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

"There should be no more police or prisons or family units ever!!" "uh huh sure sweet dreams sweetie do you want your pacy before I tuck you in"

[izandai]

"Abolish" is a word with a meaning. It doesn't mean "massively reduce the prevalence of" and it doesn't mean "overhaul the implementation of" and it doesn't mean "render obsolete and unnecessary". It means "completely do away with". It means "get rid of". If you say you're in favor of abolishing something, anyone who isn't in the weeds on leftist terminology–meaning MOST PEOPLE–is going to think you want to summarily ban that thing at the earliest convenience.

The immediate cultural touchstone a lot of people are going to have for usage of the word "abolish" is the abolition of slavery, AKA Abolitionism. Abolitionists did not want slavery to be phased out or made less harmful or to be more restricted or better regulated, they wanted it abolished. That's why they were called Abolitionists. Don't be surprised if when you call yourself an "[X] abolitionist" people think you want to abolish [X], using the same basic definition of "abolish" that the vast majority of English speakers use. And if that's not actually what you want to do, maybe consider calling yourself something else. I sincerely think it'll help your cause.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I mostly agree with this even though I might have different politics than op. I do think there's some unrighteous dismissals happening as well.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

And related to the previous point, questions like "what do we do with all the murderers?" ignore the myriad of ways someone might get that accusation. That question is way too broad to give direct answer to.

[needabetternamelater]

Fine, use Lord Coke's definition and answer the goddamn question.

[headingtowardsdirt]

What evidence is there, who's making the accusation, how long ago was it, what was the motivation, what are the ages of the individuals, what about the countless other specifics that can change the situation in so many different and unpredictable ways?

Also, how do you define prison?

[needabetternamelater]

headingtowardsdirt

1m

1)What evidence is there, Beyond a reasonable doubt who's making the accusation 2) We're not at the making the accusation stage, that's called alleged murder or alleged murder, we're at the convicted murderer stage 3), how long ago was it, The deed that led to the death, within a year and a day of the death 4)what was the motivation, murder doesn't mean any old killing 5) what are the ages of the individuals, wtf who cares? what about the countless other specifics that can change the situation in so many different and unpredictable ways? Again, murder is not any old killing Also, how do you define prison? Involuntarily detaining someone.

#i don't think any of those questions scapegoat the definition provided#just pointing to the impossibility to capture unique circumstances Yeah, I thought this would happen.

[headingtowardsdirt]

Okay, this 62yo person rigged a bookcase to crush her verbally abusive grandparent 43 years ago. He's now sentenced to spending the rest of her life on an all inclusive luxury cruise, with no possibility of parole. Is this justice?

[needabetternamelater]

Okay, this 62yo person rigged a bookcase to crush her verbally abusive grandparent 43 years ago. He's now sentenced to spending the rest of her life on an all inclusive luxury cruise, with no possibility of parole. Is this justice?

#not a real suggestion#just attempting to subvert all the requirements while still following the letter#also did you just define school as prison? Oh for god's sake, answer the damn question. Not the rheortoical whataboutism. And no, I did not define school as prison. You are the one meant to be telling me what you actually want to do, that's how not dodging a question works.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I'm not actually trying to argue for prison abolition here, I'm trying to argue that the real world is way more complicated than "what do we do with all the murderers?" allows.

[needabetternamelater]

Only because you're scapegoating the defintion or subverting it while keeping the letter - same bloody thing.

[headingtowardsdirt]

Man, what a long wait for such a simple (and wrong) reply.

If you look at my first reblog, I said things like "something like prison abolition" and "that sort of abolition". Which indicate that I'm using prison abolition as an example for the real point I'm trying to make.

Thanks for thinking of me though!

[needabetternamelater]

And if you look at mine..I'm talkiung abotu abolition. There's no 'sort of aboliton' or 'something like prison aboliton'. Also, disagreeing with prison abolition does not make me wrong. Also Also, LEARN HOW THE FUCKING INTERNET WORKS. IT's asynchronous ccomunication. Learn how a q works for that matter.

ALso, I am not wrong about whether you answered my question. That isn't a decsion you get to make.

[headingtowardsdirt]

And I don't have to change my argument just because you want to talk about something else.

Also, I didn't say that.

Also also, there's a difference between waiting a few days for a response and waiting more than 6 months, just like there would be a difference between a 5yo committing murder vs a 35yo.

ALso, I was answering your question in a way to illustrate the point I was trying to make, not in a way to satisfy you. Which is indeed my choice. Just like it's your choice to attack prison abolition when I never even tried to defend it.

[captainjonnitkessler]

The other reason I'm generally annoyed with the "Abolish X" crowd who actually DO mean "abolish X" and not a watered-down version is that ime they very rarely have fully thought out the implications of what they're demanding and then get angry when other people ask about it.

"Family abolition means completely removing legal ties for family units and allowing all children the choice of where they live" okay. So if I see a three-year-old throwing a fit because she doesn't want to leave the park, and I go over and tell her if she comes home with me she can stay as long as she likes and then we'll get McDonald's on the way home, that three-year-old should have the ability to make that decision? The parent or guardian has no legal recourse to stop me from taking her? Cause if the answer's no, that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

"I'm done talking about what we'll do with rapists and murderers after we abolish prisons, it's all anybody ever wants to talk about!" Well yeah man! 98% of people just interpreted your words as "we're going to let murderers roam around killing people at will"! You need to explain very clearly what plans you have that will stop them that aren't incarceration or you're not going to make any headway! And if your answer involves any form of "well of course SOME people can't be allowed total freedom" - that's not abolition, that's reform baby!

I'm not even gonna touch the number of people who think we should abolish the police and replace them with what are essentially roaming squads of vigilantes dispensing "community justice", whatever the fuck that means.

Like these aren't "gotcha" questions, they're legitimate problems you're going to have to contend with. And if you wave away all these questions with "you're just making up ridiculous scenarios" and "we'll think of something to fix that once we destroy the current system", then yeah actually, I DO think you care more about sounding radical than about making any kind of change.

[cosettetape1]

You're missing the forest for the trees here.

I'm far too tired to go word-by-word, but the long & short of what I think you're missing is that "abolish X" movements mean "stop trying to drag the Overton Window from where it I'd to where it needs to be, start over from first principles & make something better without having to get there from where we are incrementally."

Put another way, it doesn't mean "blow up the foundation & leave it libertarian", it just means "let's assume starting from scratch instead of incrementalism."

[convulsive-madness]

"Just look at the ideas that I have in the most positive light possible, please." how about I don't do that and instead think of all the ways that your terrible ideas could go horribly wrong. I.E. the most likely scenario.

[an-colm-fuinniuil]

Also.

You can't fucking "start over from first principles" without a blank slate from which to start over.

How do you plan on achieving said blank slate WITHOUT blowing everything up and getting a whole bunch of people killed in the process?

This is, yet again, someone who has not thought through any of the practical concerns behind why "I dunno how we'll prevent harm and you're actually the bad guy for telling me we need to know how to prevent harm before enacting massive societal upheaval" is a monumentally foolish method for winning over anyone with a MODICUM of common sense.

People like Cosette up there need to understand that "What is your actual material plan for preventing harm" is not a fucking gotcha, is not an attempt to drag the overton window rightward. being stupid and short-sighted about saying radical rebellious things you haven't thought through doesn't make you look like a smart, enlightened leftist who's better than everyone else, it makes you look like you slept through civics class and still have the selfishness of a five year old who doesn't understand why not everyone in their family wants to watch Frozen again for the fourth time that day.

If you're going to discuss grownup concepts like law and harm reduction and reforming systems, you have to act like an adult.

As for me, I'm no going to take a leaf out of the hardline abolitionist playbook. You think I'm wrong? Well, I've decided you're arguing in bad faith prior to hearing any of your points, therefore I shall keep my mind pure from evil influences like "how does this get implemented in reality instead of just angrily fantasized about on tungle dot com" oh wait I'm doing an impression again aren't I.

The point is, I vote we immediately dismiss people like this as unserious. I don't like their move of "you're a bad person if you have questions about the material logistics of my idealist utopia that will definitely someday exist if I call enough people bootlickers for wanting to not like, die", but I do think we need to stop indulging the childishness of these viewpoints.

"There should be no more police or prisons or family units ever!!" "uh huh sure sweet dreams sweetie do you want your pacy before I tuck you in"

[izandai]

"Abolish" is a word with a meaning. It doesn't mean "massively reduce the prevalence of" and it doesn't mean "overhaul the implementation of" and it doesn't mean "render obsolete and unnecessary". It means "completely do away with". It means "get rid of". If you say you're in favor of abolishing something, anyone who isn't in the weeds on leftist terminology–meaning MOST PEOPLE–is going to think you want to summarily ban that thing at the earliest convenience.

The immediate cultural touchstone a lot of people are going to have for usage of the word "abolish" is the abolition of slavery, AKA Abolitionism. Abolitionists did not want slavery to be phased out or made less harmful or to be more restricted or better regulated, they wanted it abolished. That's why they were called Abolitionists. Don't be surprised if when you call yourself an "[X] abolitionist" people think you want to abolish [X], using the same basic definition of "abolish" that the vast majority of English speakers use. And if that's not actually what you want to do, maybe consider calling yourself something else. I sincerely think it'll help your cause.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I mostly agree with this even though I might have different politics than op. I do think there's some unrighteous dismissals happening as well.

While I agree that there should some thought into the reality how something like prison abolition actually works, I don't think someone arguing needs to answer for every single hypothetical someone can dream up. There will never be a one size fits all because every situation has its own nuances. That's usually the point to that sort of abolition, setting up a framework that is able to adapt to unique situations.

And related to the previous point, questions like "what do we do with all the murderers?" ignore the myriad of ways someone might get that accusation. That question is way too broad to give direct answer to.

[needabetternamelater]

Fine, use Lord Coke's definition and answer the goddamn question.

[headingtowardsdirt]

What evidence is there, who's making the accusation, how long ago was it, what was the motivation, what are the ages of the individuals, what about the countless other specifics that can change the situation in so many different and unpredictable ways?

Also, how do you define prison?

[needabetternamelater]

headingtowardsdirt

1m

1)What evidence is there, Beyond a reasonable doubt who's making the accusation 2) We're not at the making the accusation stage, that's called alleged murder or alleged murder, we're at the convicted murderer stage 3), how long ago was it, The deed that led to the death, within a year and a day of the death 4)what was the motivation, murder doesn't mean any old killing 5) what are the ages of the individuals, wtf who cares? what about the countless other specifics that can change the situation in so many different and unpredictable ways? Again, murder is not any old killing Also, how do you define prison? Involuntarily detaining someone.

#i don't think any of those questions scapegoat the definition provided#just pointing to the impossibility to capture unique circumstances Yeah, I thought this would happen.

[headingtowardsdirt]

Okay, this 62yo person rigged a bookcase to crush her verbally abusive grandparent 43 years ago. He's now sentenced to spending the rest of her life on an all inclusive luxury cruise, with no possibility of parole. Is this justice?

[needabetternamelater]

Okay, this 62yo person rigged a bookcase to crush her verbally abusive grandparent 43 years ago. He's now sentenced to spending the rest of her life on an all inclusive luxury cruise, with no possibility of parole. Is this justice?

#not a real suggestion#just attempting to subvert all the requirements while still following the letter#also did you just define school as prison? Oh for god's sake, answer the damn question. Not the rheortoical whataboutism. And no, I did not define school as prison. You are the one meant to be telling me what you actually want to do, that's how not dodging a question works.

[headingtowardsdirt]

I'm not actually trying to argue for prison abolition here, I'm trying to argue that the real world is way more complicated than "what do we do with all the murderers?" allows.

[needabetternamelater]

Only because you're scapegoating the defintion or subverting it while keeping the letter - same bloody thing.

[headingtowardsdirt]

Man, what a long wait for such a simple (and wrong) reply.

If you look at my first reblog, I said things like "something like prison abolition" and "that sort of abolition". Which indicate that I'm using prison abolition as an example for the real point I'm trying to make.

Thanks for thinking of me though!

[animentality]

[echosblanketfort]

if you've ever left a hate movement, I'm proud of you

if you're in one and trying to get out, I'm proud of you. you can do it

[kropotkindersurprise]

Molly Crabapple talks about der Jüdischer Arbeiterbund, the topic of her new book “Here Where We Live Is Our Country”. The book chronicles the story of the Jewish Labor Bund, a Jewish revolutionary movement that was “socialist, secular, defiantly Jewish and proudly anti-Zionist”. [video]