It’s more than that. People who have had heart transplants can inherit memories and personality traits from the donor. Cells remember more than they let on and can pass these memories to the recipient.
See this study. I think it’s safe to say we have some empirical evidence for this. In the linked study, there’s a kid who received a heart from another kid who died trying to retrieve a power ranger and somehow the donor knew that without anyone telling him. Another kid received a heart from a kid who drowned and he became afraid of water.
Happy to help
Your lesser evilism is just disgusting. You don’t need to provide ideological cover for genocide you know. You can just support lesser evilism quietly.
Providing ideological cover for genocide. Tsk. You made a conscious choice of defending Harris’ program.
Like I said, you could have stayed quiet and not defended the party of genocide. You’re providing ideological cover for genocide.
You can vote for Harris and sit with your shame for cosigning genocide. You could shut up about it and not justify her program for genocide, perhaps telling yourself it’s harm reduction, lie to yourself, take whatever you need. The ballot is secret after all, I won’t know, nor could stop you from voting. Or, you could make a conscious decision to vote for her and justify her genocidal program and all that that entails. You’ve made your choice to lie and falsify Harris’ program and gaslight people by saying she’ll find a solution. (She definitely will not. She promised to make the US military more lethal.)
You’ve made your choice. Now you have to sit with it.
I will categorically say I will never condemn people for not voting for more Palestinian death.
Looks interesting, thanks.
Super rad
Thanks!
Alas, the vegan grocery I use only has it in clumps :/
Oooh thanks!
Been meaning to try!
Doesn’t it come on clumps? How do you shape it into a solid?
Yeah, fair
Hmm, I forgot the UK doesn’t arm their rank-and-file police. As it happens, that’s one of the major transitional demands of the abolitionist movement. That’s not enough, however. Even from my vantage point fro the global south, I can see how the law is used unevenly in the UK, repressing the progressive forces but giving right wing forces a pass.
Come on, Instead of Prisons is like 500 pages long. Just admit you don’t have the patience to read.
Abolition is complex. Simple plans are for fascists who can attract any simpleton with sophistry. The violence of policing and incarceration are both very simple plans for the causes of harm. We address criminalization by abolishing the police and prisons. We address future harms through addressing their root causes. We address present harms through harm reduction. We address harms already done through restorative and transformative justice. None of this is simple, clear, or obvious. The work of abolition is always harder than the status quo.
I challenge you then to think, why is it that these functions (your numbers 1 and 2) are solely the purview of a special body of armed men? Right now people at the margins deal with harm in a healthy, restorative, and transformative way, and they have been doing this because they are Black, Indigenous, Queer, feminized, criminalized, or whatever other context that prevents them from turning to the police. So because of this, they had to develop ways of dealing with harm without invoking a special body of armed men.
As for your functions 3 to 5, why do you need to detain these people? Will detaining them help them resolve the issues that make them violent or “disruptive”? Will it help them with their mental issues? To transform their energies from violence? It’s ridiculous to even suggest a prison would. Reformed ex-prisoners are reformed in spite of, not because of, prisons. No society before ours chain millions of people into cages like we do today. You can try out reading Instead of Prisons.
As for who finds missing people, who investigates the mysteries, maybe detectives can continue to exist, not as special bodies of armed men, but as servants of society like a social worker. Maybe they can be adventurers or something like some kind of scooby doo gang. Maybe maybe maybe, all this talk is pointless for us now. Seeds in this society can grow to alternative possibilities tomorrow. What matters is that the non-violent functions that policing has usurped from society can return to communities who can then decide on how these functions can and ought be carried out.
This is a bit of an abolition 101 question. I’d invite you to start a new thread to get other people to chime in.
In your specific question, serial killers are a historically contingent phenomenon specific to our current society dominated by alienation. They do not necessarily exist in other places in time or other social contexts outside capitalist/consumer society. Murder, however, is a bit clear-cut trans-historical phenomenon. We can find it across cultures and across history. The vast majority of murders see personal relationships between murderers and victims. Serial killings where the victim does not know the murderer are rare. Why do people murder? Bad relationships perhaps. The key then is to build a society where these social causes of murder no longer occur. Many societies across history had a plethora of ways to achieve this. If murder does happen, then there are still ways to go through restorative and transformative justice to see that the harms are addressed. Check out the many abolitionist resources for more.
For non-crime tasks, then obviously you don’t need police to find missing people. The police are historically contingent on creating and reproducing criminalization. What does that have to do with working with people to help them or find missing persons? Cops don’t need to do that. EDIT: Police have usurped various functions of society into its apparatus. A society that has abolished policing can restore these usurped functions to communities.
Gotta tell you, I didn’t think Greta would meet with the Apoists. I knew she is very cool, but now she’s more left libertarian than I thought.