this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
29 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14254 readers
636 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Re-educated to the point where they do it voluntarily in reparation and solidarity with those they’ve wronged lol.
That doesn't answer my question. What is the standard of evidence that someone can't be re-educated?
Oh sorry - it wasn’t supposed to. More tongue in cheek to the point that someone could be forced to give up “their” land as punishment; or re-educated to the point where they do it willingly (either in good faith reparations or in abandonment of the concept of “private property”). And so the end standard would effectively be that they embrace anarcho-communism
Also I’m realizing I mis-read your question as what’s the standard that they’ve achieved education; not that it isn’t possible.
If I had to guess for that - I’d say it has to be voluntary to an extent right? Like if they’re rejecting all education- what’s the point? Like if a guy who was extremely anti-miner were forced to work in a mine to develop solidarity and empathy with miners, but after a year they were still extremely anti-miner, it’d be safe to call that a lost cause imo.
But also I have no idea - just wanted to take an actual run at your question
I don't know what you even mean by anti-miner, but I don't think it epistemically makes sense to say that someone who doesn't make progress for a year after a lifetime of being a reactionary cannot be rehabilitated.
My point in asking is that I think you will pretty readily find that there is no useful standard for making such a claim, so the claim should not be made. Keep them in re-education for as long as it takes and if they just live out the rest of their natural lives there, well, that's just how it goes sometimes but you aren't ever going to find a point where "euthanizing" them is the most sensible option because you don't actually know what they will do in the future and that information is also practically useful for other rehabilitation efforts.
Yeah I pulled the “miner” example out of the blue while grasping at straws to try and formulate an example. I don’t really have enough knowledge on it to speak in an informed way.
I agree with your take though. And as an aside, I enjoy reading your thoughts on this site, because you not only challenge posters but provide solid insight. So I appreciate you taking the time to do both!
Thanks. Because I'm so argumentative, it can get really easy to view my relationship with the community here as mostly negative, so I really appreciate it
Nah I’m from the Midwest and a bit on the spectrum so my pet peeve is that no one is ever forthcoming, even when direct discussion is the best course of action. Literally dialectics ya know.
To digress a bit- The best public meeting I’ve held was with a local Indigenous nation in which the agency I worked for operated, but had apparently not held a meeting for longer than I’ve been alive. I lied and told “leadership” that the meeting would go well (I knew it wouldn’t but didn’t want them to cancel) and made sure they were in the room as I got yelled at for 3 hours. I didn’t take it personally because I agreed with all of their comments; but everyone who’d previously stuck their heads in the sand would now be unable to do so at least. People are afraid of confrontation and dialect, but it’s literally what moves society and builds community, even if it requires a more forward approach at times