Ruh'Space

ልብስን እርቃን ከመሸፈን ባለፈ የማንነታቸው መገለጫ በሚያደርጉ ሰዎች እቀናለሁ። በተለይም ደማቅ ቀለማትን የሚደፍሩ እና ከመደበኛው ወጣ ያለ የግላቸው ዘይቤ ያላቸው ሰዎች ይማርኩኛል። ዘመን አመጣሽ የወቅቱን ፋሽን ሆ ብለን ተከትለን የአንድ እናት ልጆች ከመምሰል ይልቅ እንደሰውነታችን እና ፍላጎታችን ብንለብስ ምኞቴ ነበር።

"Cat people are kinder than Dog people" I'm going to prove your point and train my dog to crack open people's skull and eat their አንጎል።

I fucking love this group and Aida's mixes [the homies mixing R&B and falling into a black hole]

Zizek hating on capitalism >> King Solomon in መኀልየ መኃልይ

The world is getting so ugly and bleak and it’s hard not to feel so hopeless. but we have to remember that they want us to feel that way. it reminds me of this quote by James Baldwin.. “Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” there’s a danger in letting hopelessness convince us that resistance is pointless, because once we believe nothing can change, we stop trying to change it. refusing to look away, refusing to become numb, and refusing to accept cruelty as inevitable is already a form of resistance. joy is resistance. it’s really scary times but we are all in this together. Dehna ederu🩵

ድንግል ማርያም helping a dude kick the ass out of another dude and get thousands of birr in return ⚡️⚡️⚡️

Men doing allat just to touch eachother's naked bodies

ላሸነፈው ነው ምደግፈው እኔ

I used to hate him during my hyper-religious phase because I genuinely thought he had demons in him. Apparently I also thought I had the gift of discerning spirits 😭. But honestly, I still hate him. I can't even tell if it's the colonizer Englishman face, the way he talks, or that unbearably smug tone of his, but something about him makes my entire nervous system go euyuk.

Richard Dawkins ይደብረኛል

Hume on Is and Ought | Issue 83 | Philosophy Now https://share.google/DOyCv2V9GiC85LBlh

The essay’s whole argument about Zizekian subjectivity is basically an attempt to answer a deceptively simple question: what exactly is the “I”? It moves through Hegel, Lacan, existentialism (Sartre 🩵) and psychoanalysis to argue that the subject is not some stable little thing sitting underneath all our identities. At its core, it is a kind of lack, a gap that we keep covering with symbolic identities, desires and fantasies. We take the things that can be said about us and gradually mistake them for the thing itself. And somehow, this made me think of Hume. More specifically, Hume’s is-ought problem. The way I understand it is almost like a logical structure: P implies Q Except P doesn't necessarily imply Q. You can have: P: Humans naturally desire pleasure. Q: Therefore, humans ought to pursue pleasure. But P does not imply Q which means a thing is missing and you need another premise: R: Whatever humans naturally desire, they ought to pursue. Now P + R = Q. R is the bridge which means it's the bridge, and it is often the part people quietly smuggle into the argument without noticing. That is what I found very similar movement in the Žižekian argument about identity. P: I have certain traits, desires, roles, experiences and characteristics. Q: Therefore, this is who I essentially am.» But again P doesn't imply Q. Where did the bridge come from? Why should everything that can be predicated of me add up to some final, essential “me”? Why should what I am described as automatically become what I am? And I think that's what made the Hume connection click for me. Hume made me suspicious of the leap between a premise and its conclusion. Žižek, in a completely different philosophical context, made me suspicious of the leap between description and an identity. We constantly make these tiny transitions without noticing: I behave this way therefore I am this kind of person. People see me this way therefore this is who I am. I have become this therefore this is what I must be. But none of those conclusions simply falls out of the premise. The bridge is the most Interesting question philosophical to me. (I obviously care whether P and Q are but still)