Generally you should do what:

1. Maximizes your personal well-being (though note I'm not saying "wealth", because they two are not always the same), and
2. Satisfies your personal and ideological principles as well as possible, at least to the point where you can live with yourself.

Just because we have systemic critiques doesn't mean we should go live in a cave and eat bugs. To the degree possible we should prefigure the society we want to build, but torturing ourselves individually to do it is both unproductive and likely takes away from our focus on more important things like organizing and taking direct action that impacts the system. We do tend to make personal sacrifices to further our ideological goals, but there's both a practical limit and one where we shouldn't be cruel to each other in our expectations.

Many of us are vegans. Most of us probably avoid buying shares in oil companies. But all of our circumstances are different. Perhaps people salting Chevron to radicalize union organizing there will wind up with its stocks in their retirement accounts that are difficult to divest from without harming their ability to retire, due to their particular circumstances. It seems pretty shitty to expect someone to just get rid of them without us having some kind of dependable (e.g. mutual aid) infrastructure in place to take care of each other in our old age.

TL;Dr: Yet you participate in society. Curious!

Nah, dude. There's plenty to disagree with in the parts of this message and your other reply down below where you try to imply modern nuclear weapons are clean and pose little to no risk beyond that of conventional weapons. Gaslight all you like, but your words are right there for all to see (unless suddenly they gain an edit timestamp after that of this comment, of course...).

Yeah, pretty much. The president has enormous power, and that power is even greater outside the country's borders. Especially because of things like the "Authorization to Use Military Force" which gives him pretty much carte blanche to "fight terrorism" anytime and anywhere he likes.

There's also this general process by which the president historically just does what he wants, and the rest of the government shrugs its shoulders and rolls over, and thus his office essentially just has that de facto power, no matter what the constitution or other laws say: Renegade Cut: No More Presidents.

The U.S. president is more powerful than any empire in the world has ever been, is pretty much a king, and basically does what he wants. Liberals often make excuses about how his hands are tied. It would be great if that were the case, but it's really, really not.

Where the heck is the notion that the U.S. government’s hands are tied coming from?

At least part of the claim is that the president himself has little power. It's the stupid finger-pointing game. "Biden needs Congress' permission to do anything at all, ever." 🙄

A useful excuse when the president doesn't want to do anything. Falls flat on its face when he actually wants to bomb, shoot, or cage the shit out of any brown people, foreign or domestic.

What’s clear is that each decision — whether to fund a treatment facility or buy a squad car — is a trade-off.

No. Not at all, really. When "sparks debate" is the best you can do. God, I hate the mainstream news so fucking much.

Still pretty weak, TBH. Language calling Hamas' actions "attacks on random Israeli civilians" while giving at least some credence to the phrase "Israel's right to defend itself." That's a lot of giveaway to imperialist and Zionist propaganda while allegedly trying to clear the air on who holds what opinions.

This is an anti-colonial struggle. Colonized people have a right to defend themselves. Nation-states absolutely fucking do not, nor do colonizers while they violently expand their colonies, uphold apartheid, and continue to commit genocide. Upholding one's oppression is not coherent with self-defense, sorry.

Excellent. Was going to recommend another, similar video, but it's one of the ones Second Thought links to at the end. Nice.

Are you actually denying/apologizing for fascists in Ukraine? Fuckin' yikes.

Sure, there are fascists in Russia too. The difference is that the country I have some influence over as a resident and citizen isn't supporting those fascists. Nor is it supporting fascists in North Korea. But ones in Urkaine? Yep. Ones in Saudi Arabia? Yep. Ones in Israel? Yep. What fascists are your country and its rulers supporting? You should really focus on that, bud.

Yep. Let's keep pushing for it.

Fair enough. Heh. Good luck with it!

You should probably find another Lemmy instance. That makes it easier to distance yourself from stuff like that when it happens.

Somewhere between anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with a strong dose of social ecology. Small communities—however sparsely (rural) or closely (urban) packed—governed horizontally through consensus models, and federating with one another for larger projects and to form responsive and resilient decentralized networks of distribution. (I'm not limiting "community" here to the strictly geographical interpretation of a communal neighborhood, though that's certainly one form; others would be worker-owned-and-self-managed cooperative enterprises, recreational clubs of various kinds, etc.)

Find ways to build successful but non-growth/non-profit-centered industries with modern technology but without the expectations of rampant consumerism, and with governance models strongly influenced by more horizontal and matrilineal societies, past and present. If we can't do it and keep smart phones, then sorry: ditch the smart phones. If we can't do it and keep modern medicine, then prioritize refining the model so we can.