They are complicit though because in this case whatever value they hold (labor, baby factory, social connection) goes away when they refuse to do those things or get killed while refusing.
In your analogy imagine being held at gunpoint knowing that if you give up your riches you will ultimately survive but the behavior that caused you to give up your riches will be incentivized and perpetuated due to your compliance. Now contrast that with the situation where you refuse to hand over your riches and the would be robber walks away or kills you only to have the riches disappear the instant you do.
Granted it is not an easy situation for an individual to make but choosing to be complicit and acting accordingly is still an exercise of an individuals agency.
> survive but the behavior that caused you to give up your riches will be incentivized and perpetuated due to your compliance
I'm really confused by this, it feels like a modern framing is being applied to a really long period of time a very very long time ago.
Why would a band of pillagers stop pillaging because the women in one village slit their throats rather than be taken captive? If anything, it seems more likely that a band would settle down and take over existing defenses and start a new life if there were people there to start new lives with, even as slaves.
Anyway it seems a little silly to suggest ancient peoples would be concerned with, or should be concerned with, the greater incentive structure of pillaging. Either way, pillagers gonna pillage.
> Anyway it seems a little silly to suggest ancient peoples would be concerned with, or should be concerned with, the greater incentive structure of pillaging. Either way, pillagers gonna pillage.
I am not asserting this. It's simply a matter of did the women help or hinder the violence? I argue that by virtue of being taken captive with hopes of integrating into the new tribe in some shape or form they helped perpetuated the violence.
> I argue that by virtue of being taken captive with hopes of integrating into the new tribe in some shape or form they helped perpetuated the violence.
If you share this opinion with some women you know irl, I would be really interested to hear how they respond.
I get you’re trying to make some argument about the roles we take, ultimately, because of our personal decisions in life situations, but complying with a robbers demands does not make me complicit in the crime. Those are two different concepts.
>Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity.
>Associated with or participating in an activity, especially one of a questionable nature.
I find it sickening that someone would even try to describe a woman having to give up her agency due to not having the physical power to fight off a man as “complicit”.
> I find it sickening that someone would even try to describe a woman having to give up her agency due to not having the physical power to fight off a man as “complicit”.
It's a dark way of thinking about it but I guess it's why 'just following orders' is generally not considered a valid legal or moral excuse even in situations when insubordination likely results in death or imprisonment.
I am not talking about decision in a legal context.
I am talking about cause and effect.
My point is that actions (or lack of action) determine the outcome. The emotions that the actor feels towards the available actions does not determine the outcome of whatever action they choose. Just the actions count.
Some situations like a single instance of SA cannot be reasonably predicted and attempts at fight, flight or freeze will end up with SA occurring regardless.
So in these situations the person who is being assaulted is not complicit because no action whatsoever could have prevented the SA from happening.
The parentheses help a lot. I also thought the original commenter was implying 13 hours of work + the 5 hour commute and couldn’t figure out where they got the 13 from haha
One of my favorite parts of visiting family in Puerto Rico is the ability to stop almost anywhere and pick up a free, fresh mango/passion fruit/papaya/etc.. It’s a beautiful thing to experience nature providing at such scale
It's truly abundance when there's so much that you don't have to ever think about running out, probably so much that it even overwhelms those mentioned in the other comments who would otherwise try to harvest as many as they could.
Do you think false accusations are a uniquely american attribute? Have you never heard of Europe's (and very much Germany's) long history of lynching alleged witches?
Im not sure what you’re trying to imply with these questions. You started your comments talking about “this country” and providing links to American lynchings. That has nothing to do with Germany. I’m not stupid. Every country has evil shit in their history and everyone is well acquainted with germanys historical shit list but let’s not try to turn around your dumb mistake as some moral grandstanding okay? Link German lynchings and false accusations when talking about Germany.
??? We're discussing the assumption that people don't make false accusations? Nobody is making any moral claims about germany, it's just historically an equally terrible assumption as in this country. I do agree this is likely a terrible assumption in every country!
Is the task of terraforming the arid land a farmer or government responsibility? I’m confused as to why California just seems to adore droughts and now I’m hearing it’s possibly avoidable?
Both. Some farmers, for example, have bulldozed some berms on the edges of their property to keep the water in for a bit and let it sink into the ground.
When I lived in Arizona long ago, many homes would add a small berm around their property for the same purpose.
Terracing of slopes can also be done.
But on a larger scale, it'd have to be the government.
You believe your government? The track record on transparency for most western governments has been so bad the last 25+ years that trusting them is kinda psychotic honestly
Actually, I think the opposite is likely true: the track record has been exemplary compared to previous periods, precisely because now we get to see through lies almost instantly.
Until the mass-internet made this possible, governments actually got away with it pretty much all the time. In some cases we got to know decades later, as documents were declassified or people confessed on their deathbeds. In most cases, we likely never got the truth. That's really not possible now, as long the internet stays up.
(Also, big shout out to FOIA laws. With all their limitations and imperfections, they were a massive step forward towards transparency in government. They would arguably have become a historical necessity at some point, but the anglosphere - Clinton, Blair - was definitely at the forefront of that shift.)
It’s a fair point that the internet and in particular civilian watchdogs on said internet have given us great tools in the fight for transparency but it can also be argued that the internet and its anonymous nature has created a whole new kind of misinformation/propaganda problem which governments are exploiting other (and many times their own) citizenry. This lessens the impact of the previously mentioned transparency boons and imo strengthens the idea that you can never trust government.
Honestly I think your tone was fine. People need to get over themselves because you said nothing wrong. If someone does something stupid I wholeheartedly believe they should be called out for doing something stupid. It’s how we learn
reply