Forcing people to be responsible for more than their immediate actions

What you’re saying is that children should carry the responsibility for the acts of their ancestors.

if I include an unjust status quo in my reasoning, then I might also use violence to free myself from the consequences of past violence, but that would not create a “cycle” wherein a stable, nonviolent state cannot be reached, since every “allowed” instance of violence would still only be associated one-to-one with an equivalent instance of “disallowed” violence.

Who’s the judge of whether it’s “allowed” violence? If we say that the status quo of Franco-German relationship is built on the past injustice, and that this should be fixed, who will count all the past centuries of wars and massacres and calculate the outstanding balance?

Because if you let it both sides do it for themselves, then they both will naturally come to the conclusion that they’ve been unjustly treated and that the other side has to pay for that. In the end it will be the stronger one, not the morally correct one, who wins. For a time, then the sides will switch => cycle of violence is IMHO unavoidable if you hold the opinion that past sins are never forgotten.

Now, if my family’s wealth was robbed long ago, I would have a right to recover it

History is basically never so nicely clear-cut. I mean, have you studied your family tree and made sure that all of that family wealth was gathered via perfectly moral means? What if it turns out that your grand grandfather was a soldier who brought home some gold of dubious origins?

The problem is that it’s all a huge “what if” amenable for any narrative you want. In the end it provides justification for the never ending cycle of violence on people having no personal guilt.

Outside of UK, Coventry is mainly known for the bombing, is there some connection to its current bad state?

DarkTable

GIMP

KDE

Kdenlive

My POV is that old events whose participants are dead stop being relevant for future moral actions. We should prefer justice for the living as opposed to justice for the already dead.

If you condemn the events leading to the status quo, then it’s necessarily the case that you should not take the status quo as any sort of ethical baseline.

That’s quite impractical since all nations and their borders were established as a result of unethical conquest. This can be used as a justification for an unending cycle of violence.

The only people in Taiwan with the right to self determination are the Taiwanese Indigenous peoples and Taiwan’s proletariat.

There are no indigenous peoples in Taiwan. We all come from Africa.

Having established the extreme, where do you cut the line who can exert self-determination? Most inhabitants of Taiwan were born in Taiwan, on what ground can’t they decide their fate?

Some, like tschüß, servus or ciao are informally used by some Czechs, others like guten tag, bon jour, dobro došli are understood, but not used unless in some joke way. It would be pretty weird to encounter any of them when talking to e. g. hotel staff, though, unless there’s an expectation you speak that language.

Post-scarcity society still has to be backed by something. In the novel, it’s 3d printers. If you have more 3d printers than others, you can use it to produce weapons to capture even more 3d printers from other people, making them scarce, and thus introducing scarcity again.

In a post scarcity society, you walk away. Let them have your shit. You can build new shit, better shit

How do you do that if they take all your 3d printers (the technology which sustains the post-scarcity world in this novel)?

Looking at your other comments it’s clear you are taking comments like boomers personally against your parents. You shouldn’t.

They were boomers, and boomers are all these negative stereotypes, so how not to take it personally?

You say something like “women can’t drive, but don’t take it personally if you’re a good female driver”. Honestly I can’t fathom how people can’t see that it might be wrong to negatively stereotype groups of the population by something they did not choose. We’ve grown to recognise sexism, racism etc. but apparently we’re still in the 1950s of ageism.

She’s a huge proponent of these systems being continued for the next generation.

Too bad she’s a boomer, though.

Rewrite this with “black” instead of “boomer” and see how it looks like.

If no, they aren’t the problem and shouldn’t feel it’s directed to them.

“boomers” is a name of a generation, not of political affiliation or attitude to youngsters. People don’t choose their year of birth.

It’s not much different from e.g. gender or racial stereotyping and what you’re saying is pretty similar to “if you’re not lazy, don’t feel offended, you can think of yourself as honorary white”.

boomers have been blaming us millennials

Which boomers? All of them? I don’t think so…

They grew up with the countries best safety net and support and then proceeded to pull up the ladder after them.

Well, my parents didn’t have any such benefits (and generally had much harder life than my generation), and didn’t pull any ladder, yet they are “guilty” by the virtue of being born in the wrong years.

Doesn’t seem right to me.

And it’s only when they complain about younger people when it really comes up.

Nah, it comes up all the time on social media on its own.

Not sure what your point is, there wasn’t much trade between US and the West until about 80s. Soviets certainly could end all trade with evil capitalists, if they wanted.

Countries like Iran or North Korea even have the luxury of capitalists themselves decoupling from them.

There’s a couple of countries without capitalism, you could try to live your dream there.

• generation hate, ageism, collective guilt - it’s getting normal to blame a whole generation (typically boomers) for all the wrong things in this world.
• websites requiring login to see content which isn’t anything privacy related - twitter, quora, instagram …
• services which require a smartphone app and don’t provide a website version.
• it’s been more than ten years now, but the fragmentation among messaging services. I mean, before that, everybody used ICQ which was a proprietary platform as well, but you had all these different clients and the platform was therefore quite open. Not anymore. I dislike RCS as a possible solution, because it’s carrier based and tied to your phone number.

I’m in a golden cage where my job earns about twice or more of what a large majority of remote jobs offer (available where I am, which is Europe).

I guess I could get very lucky and find a great paying remote job, but I feel like I could lose in the end.

Do you believe you would behave any differently if you were working from the same information they are?

Yes. I was raised as a Christian and was fed not that dissimilar bullsh*t from an early age. At that point access to information was way, way worse (no internet, small village…) than now, yet it wasn’t that crazy difficult to realize what crap it was. IMNSHO there’s no excuse today.