“When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.”
Right, could you point out where I said OP holds these values or endorsed them?
Even more, it is very difficult to read this as something other than purposefully distortive. In what way is criticizing ecofascist narratives a refusal to recognize the material conditions of climate change? You have a name about killing fascists, and yet cannot seperate socially constructed values from material relations, or individuals’ desired moral values? You’ll note that my first comment asked the commenter to also clarify if they did indeed mean to say that this is what they think would happen in a hypothetical where, despite reality, all gasoline and fertilizer disappeared. I did that to avoid exactly this kind of reading, since liberals so often subscribe to fascist values without realizing it due exactly to their refusal to interrogate their own understanding of things without fear that internalized values reflect their quality of character or, “moral purity.”
As always, scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.
“When we just accept that there is no avoiding or mitigating events like, “a lot of people” starving in colonized spaces, and then promote technological utopianism as a solution (even if inadvertently by only imagining tech as a solution), we are naturalizing the root cause of this violence, which is colonialism. Doesn’t seem like you intended it, but this is also a markedly ecofascist narrative in the way that the inevitability of that death also means that it is a prescribed trajectory for this system to take to “improvement,” much in the same way that fascists precribe the removal (genocide) of an arbitrary group of people in the metropole (US or EU) as a solution to inequities there.”
Right, could you point out where I said OP holds these values or endorsed them?
Even more, it is very difficult to read this as something other than purposefully distortive. In what way is criticizing ecofascist narratives a refusal to recognize the material conditions of climate change? You have a name about killing fascists, and yet cannot seperate socially constructed values from material relations, or individuals’ desired moral values? You’ll note that my first comment asked the commenter to also clarify if they did indeed mean to say that this is what they think would happen in a hypothetical where, despite reality, all gasoline and fertilizer disappeared. I did that to avoid exactly this kind of reading, since liberals so often subscribe to fascist values without realizing it due exactly to their refusal to interrogate their own understanding of things without fear that internalized values reflect their quality of character or, “moral purity.”
As always, scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.