this is a subtle point & one i didn't go into before b/c when doing a dunk it's best to go for the clearest case rather than risk any dilution in your takedown, but any concept of 'human nature' as something that's unchanging in history and can be known and described, whatever the traits or moral valuations ascribed to it, is fundamentally reactionary
provisionally, this is b/c any movement that anchors itself in a perception of knowing what people 'are' or what they 'can be' will always end up enshrining the prejudices of its particular historical moment as facets of nature & be unable of confronting it. even if you think in principle there is such a thing as human nature, there would be no way for us to perceive it outside of our social context; and w/e is assigned to 'nature' is outside politics
ultimately, it's because a view of people as having a permanent 'nature' of which things can be said makes us confront them as objects, as something knowable and controllable, and not as persons, not as potentialities capable of containing anything and of always doing otherwise
anything that's genuinely 'human nature' would be imperceptible to us — if it's completely universal to human experience, then how could we point it out when there's nothing to compare it to? and if you can go against it, then it's neither nature nor universal. we might think an alien, say, could be able to look at humans and say what humans are like, but then that alien would only be speaking from its particular vantage point
i think here of dostoyevsky on rebellion in the brothers karamazov: even in perfect paradise, people would still be driven to revolt simply to show they still can. if someone tells you that you are by nature selfish and greedy & can't do otherwise, will you not be kind simply to prove them wrong? or if you're told you have innate good, will you not sin just out of the presumption of trying to dictate to you all you can ever be?
anyway 'human nature' in this sense is not compatible with marxism — dialectics mean 'being' as such is not accessible to us, only becoming; and materialism demands we take things as they appear and not elevate our ideas about what they should be like above that. fascism, however, loves human nature. so someone saying communism and fascism are both tyrannical & then going off about human nature tells us something we already knew: that this person is full of shit
its half past eight and i'm pouring sweat, that means run number seven on the half marathon plan is in the bag
Rideshare drivers are striking today, July 21st. Midnight to midnight
satanists might get angry at me for this lol, but it's true
the satanist-to-fascist pipeline is easy to explain when you remember how many satanists do not think about what they're doing beyond "debbil make daddy get big mad, me like when he angy"
once you want to start being an edgelord for attention, and find it fulfilling to do that simply because it makes other people angry, it becomes real easy to look at other symbols of evil that make people angry and go whole-hog into that because 'if it makes them angry, it's good! and i don't need to think any more about that!'.
is it true? kinda sorta. but what it definitely does do is make people think that means its a place they can say whatever bullshit they want, that it's a place they can just come in, spin up an instance, and join the conversation. and that is a recipe for the worst fedi experience you and everyone else on the network has ever had
your favorite shitposter's favorite shitposter
the villain of villains | i love you
qvp pride flag by @distressedegg
#nobot | she/her, sie/hir, or xe/xer | aries | ace | trans |
(?wo)man|.* | Cy for short
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!