this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

947 readers
2 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think you're completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not making a "thing good" or "thing bad" argument. Like I'm not saying "the family as it has been constructed under capitalism is as force for good and should be protected at all costs"

it’s better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on

what I'm specifically talking about is in a context that is totally removed from any real political action, which is most conversations with my reactionary family members. at least in my context they aren't materially opposing me in any real way, they just saw some shit on facebook and are vomiting it me. what I mean by find a synthesis is not find the direct center point between my opinion and theirs(my opinion being based in reality and theirs not) but instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs. the thing about peoples insane right-wing delusions is most of the time its not grounded in anything other then rhetoric, at least here in north America.

(sorry if I didn't use the quote function right, I'm very new to lemmy)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs

What is an "aesthetic compromise" in this context? Do you have an example?

It sounds like you're just doing "tolerate people's insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs" but obscured with lots of fancy words.

Propaganda has a very real effect on material circumstances anyway. To suggest otherwise in 2025 is wild.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What is an “aesthetic compromise” in this context? Do you have an example?

sure, I'll use a personal example. I was talking with a relative of mine who hates rich people but loves elon musk because he owns the libs or whatever. instead of beginning the interaction by disagreeing about elon musk being a super cool guy who's smart and awesome, I started the conversation from the perspective of agreeing with her about how much the rich suck and libs suck and yada-yada-yada but the place it ended at was that elon also sucks and that they should value less the performative aspect of our modern political climate more the substantive. so not an aesthetic compromise in the scene of a middle ground between aesthetics but the aesthetic of compromise itself. basically what I'm saying is just chill the fuck out and talk to people who you have a long relationship with instead of cutting them out in some sort of purity testing way.

tolerate people’s insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs

that's not at ALL what I'm saying. I'm saying challenge those beliefs in a way the is effective. thinking about social interactions in a punishment/reward way isn't very effective in my experience. Also some family systems are much worse then others and some ARE in fact good and something to be protected, specifically indigenous family systems should be protected as they are to a large extent inherently anti-colonial/anti-imperialist.

sorry if this still doesn't make scene I'm not really used to having a conversation in this format so I might not be representing my point of view in the best way. please try to be charitable when interpreting what I'm saying.