I can see the shapes of at least two important things that I agree with, but I can't tell from here whether either one was the thing you're trying to pin down, and if so which one.
("where if you're just kind and loving and gentle with people for long enough they will Realise The Error Of Their Ways and that They Were Wrong All Along, because of how toxic and gaslighting that can be." YES THIS. And patronising and offputting. And so hard to escape, from either side. And on a theological level -- if discussing a single omnipotent/omniscient God -- COMPARED TO ETERNAL TORTURE FOR UNSAVED SINNERS, I prefer the universalist, love wins, "if hell exists it is empty", "God's grace continues after death and eternity is long enough to heal all wounds in everyone and redeem every possible sin", etc, position. But that's compared to a god who would literally permit people to be eternally tortured for their sins. The loving god with infinite power and infinite time who eventually overcomes the resistance of all the stubborn stragglers by outwaiting them, and then welcomes them to eir arms is better than the eternal torturer, but is still REALLY FUCKING CREEPY AND TERRIFYING imo. Infinite power is disturbing even if the holder is omnibenevolent. Which no humans or human systems are.)
Here's a related problem I keep on turning over, one that often leads me to a rehabilitative justice conclusion, but which rehabilitative justice does not actually solve, at all: how do we live with each other afterwards?
As in, suppose we win (for whichever value of "we" are working for whichever political goals is in view, from "turn the construction pit into a park" right up to revolution leading to a new planet-wide utopia.) What comes next (Hamilton earworm optional) and what does that look like with regards to the people who do (or did) not share our goals, but are still around? Do they no longer exist? How? Did we kill them? (In which case, is that the utopia "we" are imagining? One in which we kill all dissenters?) Convince them of the rightness of our cause? (All of them? How did we manage that? And is our utopia one in which there is no dissent at all?) Or if they are still around (or if not, when later generations start having ideas of their own) how do we live with each other?
The only part of this that I'm sure about is that this is only not a concern if we're anticipating that the "afterwards" condition involves either "they" or "we" being dead. Which of course is already the case if they are trying to kill us.
no subject
I can see the shapes of at least two important things that I agree with, but I can't tell from here whether either one was the thing you're trying to pin down, and if so which one.
("where if you're just kind and loving and gentle with people for long enough they will Realise The Error Of Their Ways and that They Were Wrong All Along, because of how toxic and gaslighting that can be." YES THIS. And patronising and offputting. And so hard to escape, from either side. And on a theological level -- if discussing a single omnipotent/omniscient God -- COMPARED TO ETERNAL TORTURE FOR UNSAVED SINNERS, I prefer the universalist, love wins, "if hell exists it is empty", "God's grace continues after death and eternity is long enough to heal all wounds in everyone and redeem every possible sin", etc, position. But that's compared to a god who would literally permit people to be eternally tortured for their sins. The loving god with infinite power and infinite time who eventually overcomes the resistance of all the stubborn stragglers by outwaiting them, and then welcomes them to eir arms is better than the eternal torturer, but is still REALLY FUCKING CREEPY AND TERRIFYING imo. Infinite power is disturbing even if the holder is omnibenevolent. Which no humans or human systems are.)
Here's a related problem I keep on turning over, one that often leads me to a rehabilitative justice conclusion, but which rehabilitative justice does not actually solve, at all: how do we live with each other afterwards?
As in, suppose we win (for whichever value of "we" are working for whichever political goals is in view, from "turn the construction pit into a park" right up to revolution leading to a new planet-wide utopia.) What comes next (Hamilton earworm optional) and what does that look like with regards to the people who do (or did) not share our goals, but are still around? Do they no longer exist? How? Did we kill them? (In which case, is that the utopia "we" are imagining? One in which we kill all dissenters?) Convince them of the rightness of our cause? (All of them? How did we manage that? And is our utopia one in which there is no dissent at all?) Or if they are still around (or if not, when later generations start having ideas of their own) how do we live with each other?
The only part of this that I'm sure about is that this is only not a concern if we're anticipating that the "afterwards" condition involves either "they" or "we" being dead. Which of course is already the case if they are trying to kill us.