I know y'all are quoting System of a Down, so I want to share a country song about exactly this...because the difference in the musical styles is neat. One of my favorites by Steve Earle: Rich Man's War.

It's a song I've always loved for the direct message of rich people using poor folks as soldiers in wars...but also the way it weaves in a larger economic picture about the decisions by the rich that put people in the very desperate positions that they later exploit.

That's entirely my point though: we can't reason with a deadly virus, but we can with most humans. Or at least some humans. OK maybe a few. The point is, I don't think it's logical to throw in the towel.

That isn't human exceptionalism in my view, either: because I don't believe we're inherently special animals when it comes to how we treat the environment. My point is that most animals inherently exploit resources, and drive others to extinction. We just managed to make guns and power tools and propaganda. Once humans are gone, we have no reason to think that any species that manages to start some technologically advanced civilization will be any better. So either we eradicate all biological life to ensure that it doesn't eradicate biological life...or we try to improve humanity, because despite things, we can often be reasoned with. Humanity has gotten better, even though it hasn't improved enough, when looking at human civilization over the last few thousand years. That's my point: not that we don't deserve calamity, but that we can - if we fight hard enough - try to steer our own species toward a better future for everyone.

Who knows though, maybe if humanity is gone the bonobos will rise up to take our place. They're pretty chill, all things considered.

That's the easy way out. Please stick around and help the rest of us try to steer humanity in the right direction. Help the moral arc of the universe bend a little faster. It's hard work, and most of us won't see much of a return. But long-term, let's hope that humanity can.

To clarify: I'm a biologist. The perspective you've taken is basically "Noble Savage" but for animals. Animals are pushed to extinction all the time. Yes, we're incredibly good at it, and we're good at coming up with highfalutin reasons for killing things, but look at chimps, ants, dolphins...nature is brutal. It sucks to be most animals. Say a habitat changes, and a species "needs" to move into an adjacent similar habitat that's already occupied by one or more species exploiting those resources? Extinction of something is pretty likely. That's all very much an oversimplification, of course, but this is a lemmy comment.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111310 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-it-comes-waging-war-ants-humans-have-lot-common-180972169/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

The hope I have is our intelligence. The fact that you recognize this existential threat is more than a badger is capable of.

You're joking, but the covfefe thing was almost more ridiculous, given they pretended it was intentional and claimed that an inside group knew exactly what he meant.

The solutions I've seen require a fundamental rethinking of the way housing works in the USA (and most places), where renting just turns into another way to build some amount of equity, and the property managers are under more democratic control. More of the process subsidized by the local government, in the same way that water treatment is.

Arguably it's renting by another name, but the central point is to strip the profit motive out of it (some salaries are needed, but in a system with more regulatory oversight) and to allow the renter to get some financial benefit so they aren't simply pissing money away.

Apologies in advance for that vague response: I'm not an economist or real estate expert, so I can't back up that general idea with any kind of details or evidence it's feasible.

I saw your post the other day and didn't have anything constructive to add (my instinct was to say 'just see where it goes, but don't force it to be romantic', but I know so little about the situation that it's hollow advice), but I came across this article in the NY Times that might speak to your situation. It talks about limerence, which is a new word for me. I say might, because it might not be what you're feeling, but it's worth a read regardless, and the tips on how to overcome it in the article seem useful (and have backing by different researchers, so they're bound to have more material on the subject that would be potentially related to what you're going through).

Gift link so no paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/27/style/limerence-addiction-love-crush.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RU0.qcHQ.OMOM2nOkSCqy&smid=url-share

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo&t=559s

There is a good visualization in this video (These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us by Not Just Bikes) at the timestamp I linked (roughly 9 minutes 19 seconds), cited from KidsAndCars.org

Sorry, I took a more international route with the terminology: I meant state as in The State, not an individual state in the USA. Federal laws restricting the purchase of a firearm is IMHO the State interfering with the Second Amendment, if you're taking a severely strict interpretation of it.

So that's my question: is it OK to have the Federal restrictions on what you can buy (e.g. requiring a permit!), and from disallowing Felons? I'm a gun owner myself, but if you go back to what I opened with: the discrepancy between "The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun" and seemingly OK with some Federal oversight is a hangup for a lot of us. If a handful of laws are common sense (no felons), why can't we enact other common sense laws?

I struggle to find what to say, because I'm just some random schmuck on the internet. Plenty of people post vile comments, so I'm going to post a saccharine one, in honor of your friend.

Others have said it already, but I'll say it again because why not: your voice online has been a pleasure.

Grief is terrible, and I'm sorry you lost a loved one. I'm lucky enough to have a friend like the one you describe. We're a big part of each others' support system, and a lot of what we talk about winds up being Trek. I say that only to let you know that your grief will help me remember why I should cherish my friend, while we're both around. Maybe that doesn't do you any good, hopefully it doesn't come across as selfish/insensitive on my part (if so, you have my apology in advance), but maybe it's some consolation that you and your buddy are inspiring others who have never even met you. We all have an effect on people's lives, whether we know when it happens or not. Just being some kind of role model, even in a small way, will influence people for the better. That's my hope, anyway. So you and your buddy have clearly been doing this for a lot of us, here. I'm sure elsewhere. You don't owe any of us anything, but I know seeing your positivity makes me smile.

I had read your initial comment as insinuating the previous commenter was supporting hamas, and when someone directly challenged you on it, you didn't reject that accusation.

So if you just wanted to point out the irony, consider my comment as much a non sequitor as your comment on its irony, which is - I suppose - at least irony-adjacent in itself.

We don't disagree: there's a short-sightedness that causes folks to say things like "once the boomers die out, things will be great". There are systemic issues that gauze the greed and fear and violence, and the folks that get swept up in these movements are in large part products of their environment, as we all are.

So we need to change the environment, but otherwise well-meaning folks don't want it to change because they benefit from it, even when they are vaguely aware that there are monsters out there that keep it that way. I'd like to think there's more liberals/moderates who would be allies against fascism if this kind of thing can be communicated in a way that doesn't alienate folks, but I'm also sympathetic to arguments that fiery language is necessary to rattle people out of comfort zones... So in sum, thanks for the good discussion.

Call it pedantry if you want, but the fascists themselves are what truly "makes fascism possible".

Yes, there are plenty of folks have culpability in allowing these fucks gain control, from short-sighted collaborators who just want profit, idiots who think "they can't really be that bad", but there's an extent to which I think we should be careful about victim-blaming well-meaning (but naive) folks who believe that Liberty and Justice will win the day (being misled by whitewashed historical narratives who erase the boots on the ground required to make social and political changes - and the organization necessary to resist the rise of fascists).

I get your point, and clearly (from the paragraph I just typed) agree to an extent - I just think it's reductive to the point of undermining the movements against fascism when "liberals" all get thrown in the same basket.