I’m familiar with both of those words. Ok also familiar with the idea of a lever-arm, and this one is too long for my sense of safety.

If it’s stupid but it works, it’s still stupid, and you’re lucky.

My loyalty is for sale.

RFK Junior is 71 years old. That’s not your shining example of “eventually gong to get himself killed.”

Your reading comprehension needs work.

I didn’t say otherwise.

I have no comment on weather the Korean War was a genocide. I don’t know enough about the topic.

Your statement, that I replied to, was “Nothing in the community rule say that the content should be about established facts”

That is what I understand. But that is not meaningful in this case. Speaking purely hypothetically, there is no reason that the US could not take advantage of North Korean aggression as an excuse to commit the genocide that the article accuses them of.

Should we be learning things that aren’t true?

And in both cases, missing the point. Categorize based on the chemistry, not the source of the chemical.

That’s an untenable position. I mean, Cocaine is a plant, too.

But if I, a 30 year old want to fuck a 17 year old, would I not also be called a pedophile? But if an 80 year old wanted to fuck me, he wouldn’t be?

Define your terms of you end to be ableto communicate.

Moving towards becoming a shit company, you mean.

I agree with you that the systems we have built keep the powerful in power. That’s what they get out of the deal.

But the point of civilization has less to do with them, and more to do with interactions between regular people. If I have a dispute with you, for example, over some property, we can call on lawyers, police, regulatory bodies and similar to help us settle our dispute. We maybe don’t like the resolution, but, by and large, we accept it.

Without those systems, I could just beat you up, and take the property for myself. You’re only real option would be to kill me, and take it back.

Similar, we can do things like vote out our leaders, or move to other places. We have options besides burning down the castle, or setting up a guillotine.

Civilization is about giving us that alternative.

That’s wife material, that is.

Nothing got hijacked, “civilization” structured around the threat of violence was exploitative from the start.

It’s not a threat of violence, it’s a preferable alternative to violence, for both sides. Revolts aren’t great for those in power, but they are catastrophic for a significant number of those not in power.

And you are missing mine.

The government gives the working class a way to have their grievances heard and addressed in a way other than starting a rebellion.

Yes, it serves to keep the powerful in power, but that’s irrelevant to my point. It also serves to make sure the little people get taken care of well enough that we don’t kill the ones in power.

For a more specific example, see unions. The alternative to unions is plant managers getting killed.

That’s not why we built them. They got hijacked for that, and they need fixing.

They were built so we had an alternative to killing each other over disputes.

Violence is almost always the solution. Civilization is an effort to find a better solution. But people who reject the systems we’ve built up seem to forget why we built then.