My point (evolved from various other posts in a conversation from days ago that I'm not going to track down) is that you can't sit in your armchair and just play chess across the world because it removes the visceral moral element from your decision making as you have no connection to the places you're attempting to make decisions for. I mean you can but invariably the inhuman results of your decisions have consequences for real people who are not pieces on a chessboard and the result is the quagmire of death, genocide, oppression, and exploitation that has been the world for thousands of years.

There are nice, normal, non-sociopathic people right here who are voicing opinions they think are just and good that influence public policy that result in horrors thousands of miles away and to view that as simply the way things are and always will be and thus we should just accept it is for those nice normal people to shed their nice normality and become unfeeling robots who under no circumstances will ever care about the consequences of their country's actions. Our nice normal people can be ****s but they still hope for a world where their opinions they voice to our leaders result in a better world for everyone and if we're not working towards that in some ****ing way we might as well give up this whole human experiment right now.

3 Benadryl two hours before bed, but it's much too early.

Oh, and...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...riumposter.jpg

... Is this is response to me?

Yeah I guess so. I was trying to respond to Chula about the point I was making with a bunch of quotes of the conversation up till now but it wouldn't let me post so I deleted all the quotes and posted that cause I wasn't about to waste it or alter it after all that time I spent on it. Salvage it as you will.

I don't think you are fully recognizing how cut throat the world is

You say you can't make decisions from a distance that affect real people. The reality is, you can't not do that and still expect to compete and prosper.


It's not as much of a choice as you present it. There is no global monopoly of force. Any weakness you present can (and probably will) be exploited by other players.

Look, A.) the human race is **** and I'm well aware of this, B.) choice is fake news, C.) but if the human race is going to survive as a morally evolving species and not stagnate into a nihilistic race of morlocks who eventually come to finally realize that morality is a lie and they have no future as caring lifeforms then this whole realpolitik foreign policy schtick is not something to be embraced, it is to be seen as an existential enemy the same as nuclear weapons and global warming. I do not know how this is to be achieved but just accepting pragmatism is death. Like actual death at some point in the future. This is why I'm bringing up religion and convoluted morality and ****.

The impossibility of it all is why I’m both an anarchist and a fascist.

If you are unable to serve the "greater good", then serve yourself and those closest to you that you give two ****s about.

Do you see why I vacillate between decrying capitalism and amoral liberalism and mocking everything this society does?

I mean by that logic why don't I just murder you and take your **** and your imaginary Kenyan girlfriend? I think it would be pretty funny if I could get away with it in this context.

you're creating a moral imperative with no cohesive way to achieve it

It's very similar to tying a man up, murdering his wife in front of him, and then chastising him for not defending her

Sorry but "I don't know how" = you are proposing nothing but sentiment and well wishes.