Fixed it for yaUnruffled [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.commod to Lefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com – 506 points – 1 months agocross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/12580687 source 83Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent comment Well, you're wrong. LOL limited Ah! So now you're changing your tune! Not "preventing" but "limiting". Best of luck, maybe you'll get to reality in the end.So, amassing of power can't be limited in your opinion?Why are you asking me that?Because that's what you're implying.I'm neither saying nor implying that.Yes you are: "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase: "We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
Well, you're wrong. LOL limited Ah! So now you're changing your tune! Not "preventing" but "limiting". Best of luck, maybe you'll get to reality in the end.So, amassing of power can't be limited in your opinion?Why are you asking me that?Because that's what you're implying.I'm neither saying nor implying that.Yes you are: "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase: "We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
So, amassing of power can't be limited in your opinion?Why are you asking me that?Because that's what you're implying.I'm neither saying nor implying that.Yes you are: "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase: "We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
Why are you asking me that?Because that's what you're implying.I'm neither saying nor implying that.Yes you are: "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase: "We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
Because that's what you're implying.I'm neither saying nor implying that.Yes you are: "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase: "We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
I'm neither saying nor implying that.Yes you are: "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase: "We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
Yes you are: "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase: "We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase: "We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented? No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation. You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
Got it, you're refusing to engage.With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...1 more...
With you only.So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool. admit LOL1 more...1 more...1 more...
LOL
Ah! So now you're changing your tune! Not "preventing" but "limiting". Best of luck, maybe you'll get to reality in the end.
So, amassing of power can't be limited in your opinion?
Why are you asking me that?
Because that's what you're implying.
I'm neither saying nor implying that.
Yes you are:
I see where the confusion lies. Let me rephrase:
"We" cannot prevent power or exploitation so the question is moot.
No one's talking about power itself, but of its' monopolisation.
Why can't that and exploitation be prevented via social structures? Why are you ignoring all the precedents where it was/is already prevented?
You're not making any sense. We're not communicating. Take care.
Got it, you're refusing to engage.
With you only.
So you admit it's personal rather than topical, cool.
LOL