▲ 1273 ▼ A Reminder (lemmy.today) submitted 1 month ago by PlasticLove@lemmy.today to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.ca 317 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (86 children) FWIW, I generally agree with you. Reagan poured fuel on the fire that burned out so many of us, and started a bunch of new ones that didn’t need to be started (War on Drugs comes to mind), absolutely. OP of comments here made a direct call out that Carter implemented policies that started us on the path of neoliberalism. You just seem to want to argue that Reagan was worse. That’s an argument that nobody here is on the other side of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 86 child comments replies: [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (85 children) Fair enough but he kind of did. The reason why we're here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with… Yeah we’re here because we chose Reagan over Carter. And out of those choices we picked the one who was the piece of shit. I am pretty sure that Carter would have been capable of reversing course or realizing mistakes. Reagan was all in on the destruction. Same as we’re here because we chose Bush over Gore, Obama over McCain… Trump over Clinton/Harris etc. One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can (even if they fail or get some bad apples). The other is actively (and purposefully) trying to make things worse. Our choices are what got us here. Saying things would be the same is how Republicans keep winning and the Overton Window only seems to move right and never left. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 85 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (74 children) One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can (even if they fail or get some bad apples). Oh my sweet, sweet, summer child. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 74 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (73 children) Game of Thrones sucks and I thought we were well over "bothsides" in 2026. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 73 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children) Why don't you ask a search engine and learn something instead of asking me to educate you? Most people aren't as nice as I am. Next, based on these indicators, we classified all Democratic members of Congress and viable congressional candidates into (or, in some cases, between) three factions. The Left Progressives include members and candidates who support an arms embargo on Israel, accuse the country of genocide and apartheid, and typically receive support from Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption or DSA. The Mainstream Progressives are members or candidates who support conditioning military aid and arms sales to Israel based on human rights and legal standards; use strong language to criticize Israel’s wartime conduct while tending to avoid the terms genocide and apartheid; and generally receive support from J Street. The Pro-Israel Establishment includes members or candidates who oppose conditioning military aid to Israel, generally avoid harsh language when criticizing Israeli policy, and typically receive support from AIPAC and DMFI. By including congressional candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning in November, while also taking into account expected retirements among incumbents, we were able to estimate not only the size and influence of each of the three factions in the current Congress but also within the Congress that will take shape after the November elections. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/democratic-party-2026/ So those first two factions. These factions are absent in the Republican party. This isn't hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (66 children) Yeah I don’t get it from some of these people. One side took a dollar from the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny tray and stole a pack of smokes. The other side shot the brown teller behind the counter and emptied the till. Then lit the store on fire while yelling about the brown guy being an illegal immigrant. We’re talking about orders of magnitude of shenanigans. And being wrong like Carter and being a traitorous, lying sack of shit like Reagan. Are completely different things. The both sides are the same crowd are going to get us all killed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 66 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) Reagan was far worse than Carter. Carter was a neoliberal and set the ball in motion for a lot of the worst that capitalism has reeked on the planet Two things can be true. both sides are the same I wasn’t saying that, but looks like that other guy went off the rails so good luck to him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (12 children) Both of the people I was talking to tried to defend Obama's continued occupation of Afghanistan, so I'd consider myself justified in going off the rails. Or rather, they're the one's that went off the rails. How anyone could defend the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, especially now, when it's undeniable that it accomplished nothing, is hard to comprehend. How anyone could do so while thinking that they're anywhere remotely near the left, or that they have even a sliver of morality in their body, is beyond me entirely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago True and yeah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (50 children) My brother came home from Afghanistan with severe PTSD and started shooting meth to cope with it. My family was torn apart as he threw around all sorts of paranoid accusations and threatened to harm himself or others, always in language just vague enough to be actionable. He wound up picking up one of his many guns, driving out to some random, innocent person's house, and, fortunately, got shot in the arm by the cops who'd followed him there. I spent a full year of my life essentially being an on-call 9-1-1 operator. I quit using social media accounts for fear that he'd see I was online. But the pain and trauma that I experienced was nothing compared to what I could see in my mother's eyes. That was the most traumatic experience of my life. But I fully understand that it was nothing compared to the trauma he experienced, which was, in turn, nothing compared to the trauma the Afghan people experienced. What I experience, this second-, third-hand exposure to the horrors of war, it's literally just a first-world problem. But that tiny glimpse into the things the media doesn't like talk about, was enough. Who was the president, the commander-in-chief, who ordered him over there? It was the great, liberal progressive hero, Mr. Barack Obama. A guy who was, "just trying to do the right thing" but who occasionally makes some teensy weensy mistakes like prolonging a pointless, unwinnable war of aggression and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed for no reason and subjecting countless millions to horrors far worse than anything you or I could even comprehend. And that's just like taking a few too many coins from a take-a-penny, is that right? Absolutely fucking not. If you actually try to view the world from a global perspective, if you genuinely believe in equality and treat every Afghan's life as being equally valuable as your next-door neighbor's, then you will quickly find yourself understanding and agreeing with my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 50 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (49 children) This comment is funny because it further reinforces the point: Obama didn't start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghanistan for the Taliban, which as we've seen has been disastrous for that country's girls and women. There are exactly three choices in every general election: The viable party. The other viable party. Not participating in the election at all. You might think there are other options like write-ins, protest votes, or third parties. Unfortunately, those are all permutations of #3: nonparticipation. Nobody here is saying they love Democrats. The party is about as popular as boiled cabbage at a chili competition. But when served with those three choices, participating in the election is important, which narrows it down to #1 or #2, and it's really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. The Democrats sent your brother to war. The Republicans started that war, sent way more people to it, killed more civilians, and made withdrawing impossible. The Democrats are also more likely to offer mental healthcare to your brother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) Fair enough but he kind of did. The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with That's literally the opposite of what you're claiming my position is. My position, like the other person said, is that the problems we have are a result of the economic policy of neoliberalism, enacted by both Reagan and Carter. You're saying that, rather than my position being about criticizing neoliberalism, I "kind of did" say that Reagan was better than Carter, and your supposed evidence of me taking that position is just me saying the problem was the policy of neoliberalism. One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can Lmao, that's utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true. Would you rather get operated on by someone who thinks your heart is a tumor that needs to be removed for the sake of your health, or by someone who wants to remove your heart because they want you dead? The answer is, who gives a shit? Your heart's coming out either way. Why would I care if the first surgeon is "just trying to help?" If we're being so generous with the Democrats' motives, then the only conclusion is that they comically incompetent to the point of being a useless liability. I'm not sure that actually makes them look better than the reality. But again, like I said, I am not St. Peter, I'm not trying to evaluate who's a good person deep down in their heart of hearts. All I care about is what they actually do. You are looking at things from the completely wrong perspective. Get your mind off the pearly gates and look at the actual policy and actual material results of that policy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) You never really explained why neoliberalism is problematic. Neoliberalism is not incompatible with unions, as you seemed to imply, nor is it incompatible with a government that utilizes tax and spend to provide essential services for the public. It can be regulated markets and free trade, and most of the stuff we associate with Reagan's brand of neoliberalism are consequences of horrible tax and social spending policies, not necessarily a consequence of a lighter hand at protectionism. What's the real problem here, that we became more open to importing stuff or that the government abdicated its duty to do anything at all? (Aside from bombing brown people, of course.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The real problem here predates Carter and Reagan and goes back to the New Deal itself. The New Deal was the carrot, along with the stick of the Red Scare, to root out communists and other radicals in the labor movement. The promise was that the government would protect, or at least tolerate unions, so long as they proved their loyalty by engaging in anticommunist witch hunts, such as when communists were kicked out of the AFL/CIO. The effect that this had on unions was that they became weakened, narrowly self-interested, and complacent. Once the unions were broken, and the working class had no ability to wield power or fight back against whatever the government and ruling class decided to do, they could then take steps that would weaken them even further, and at the same time they could cut social programs, because nobody had any power to stop them. Something like a general strike was impossible, because after purging anyone who sounded like a communist, there was no solidarity, no greater vision, and no willingness to really fight, since those are all things that make you sound like a communist. Now, admittedly, from a global perspective, the Chinese people have benefited immensely from offshoring, so whether it's a good or bad thing overall is hard to say. But, good or bad, it's the reason why the US in such a shitty state today, why the government is able to cut social programs, why nobody can do shit to stop anything Trump does, etc. The most direct enemy of the American ruling class are, of course, American workers (and vice versa) so us getting fucked means that they are now able to operate with impunity with nobody to stop them. Regardless, what we need to do now, as a class, is to rebuild organization from the ground up, but this time refusing to punch left and purge radicals, and to instead actively promote solidarity, a greater vision, and a willingness to fight. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (4 children) Yeah imagine making an argument instead of using words you don't understand and expecting lemmings to go along with it because you've built an echo chamber of emotional association. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] jve@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago Lmao, that's utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true. Oh my sweet, sweet summer child. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jve@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (86 children) FWIW, I generally agree with you. Reagan poured fuel on the fire that burned out so many of us, and started a bunch of new ones that didn’t need to be started (War on Drugs comes to mind), absolutely. OP of comments here made a direct call out that Carter implemented policies that started us on the path of neoliberalism. You just seem to want to argue that Reagan was worse. That’s an argument that nobody here is on the other side of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 86 child comments replies: [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (85 children) Fair enough but he kind of did. The reason why we're here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with… Yeah we’re here because we chose Reagan over Carter. And out of those choices we picked the one who was the piece of shit. I am pretty sure that Carter would have been capable of reversing course or realizing mistakes. Reagan was all in on the destruction. Same as we’re here because we chose Bush over Gore, Obama over McCain… Trump over Clinton/Harris etc. One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can (even if they fail or get some bad apples). The other is actively (and purposefully) trying to make things worse. Our choices are what got us here. Saying things would be the same is how Republicans keep winning and the Overton Window only seems to move right and never left. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 85 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (74 children) One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can (even if they fail or get some bad apples). Oh my sweet, sweet, summer child. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 74 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (73 children) Game of Thrones sucks and I thought we were well over "bothsides" in 2026. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 73 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children) Why don't you ask a search engine and learn something instead of asking me to educate you? Most people aren't as nice as I am. Next, based on these indicators, we classified all Democratic members of Congress and viable congressional candidates into (or, in some cases, between) three factions. The Left Progressives include members and candidates who support an arms embargo on Israel, accuse the country of genocide and apartheid, and typically receive support from Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption or DSA. The Mainstream Progressives are members or candidates who support conditioning military aid and arms sales to Israel based on human rights and legal standards; use strong language to criticize Israel’s wartime conduct while tending to avoid the terms genocide and apartheid; and generally receive support from J Street. The Pro-Israel Establishment includes members or candidates who oppose conditioning military aid to Israel, generally avoid harsh language when criticizing Israeli policy, and typically receive support from AIPAC and DMFI. By including congressional candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning in November, while also taking into account expected retirements among incumbents, we were able to estimate not only the size and influence of each of the three factions in the current Congress but also within the Congress that will take shape after the November elections. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/democratic-party-2026/ So those first two factions. These factions are absent in the Republican party. This isn't hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (66 children) Yeah I don’t get it from some of these people. One side took a dollar from the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny tray and stole a pack of smokes. The other side shot the brown teller behind the counter and emptied the till. Then lit the store on fire while yelling about the brown guy being an illegal immigrant. We’re talking about orders of magnitude of shenanigans. And being wrong like Carter and being a traitorous, lying sack of shit like Reagan. Are completely different things. The both sides are the same crowd are going to get us all killed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 66 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) Reagan was far worse than Carter. Carter was a neoliberal and set the ball in motion for a lot of the worst that capitalism has reeked on the planet Two things can be true. both sides are the same I wasn’t saying that, but looks like that other guy went off the rails so good luck to him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (12 children) Both of the people I was talking to tried to defend Obama's continued occupation of Afghanistan, so I'd consider myself justified in going off the rails. Or rather, they're the one's that went off the rails. How anyone could defend the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, especially now, when it's undeniable that it accomplished nothing, is hard to comprehend. How anyone could do so while thinking that they're anywhere remotely near the left, or that they have even a sliver of morality in their body, is beyond me entirely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago True and yeah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (50 children) My brother came home from Afghanistan with severe PTSD and started shooting meth to cope with it. My family was torn apart as he threw around all sorts of paranoid accusations and threatened to harm himself or others, always in language just vague enough to be actionable. He wound up picking up one of his many guns, driving out to some random, innocent person's house, and, fortunately, got shot in the arm by the cops who'd followed him there. I spent a full year of my life essentially being an on-call 9-1-1 operator. I quit using social media accounts for fear that he'd see I was online. But the pain and trauma that I experienced was nothing compared to what I could see in my mother's eyes. That was the most traumatic experience of my life. But I fully understand that it was nothing compared to the trauma he experienced, which was, in turn, nothing compared to the trauma the Afghan people experienced. What I experience, this second-, third-hand exposure to the horrors of war, it's literally just a first-world problem. But that tiny glimpse into the things the media doesn't like talk about, was enough. Who was the president, the commander-in-chief, who ordered him over there? It was the great, liberal progressive hero, Mr. Barack Obama. A guy who was, "just trying to do the right thing" but who occasionally makes some teensy weensy mistakes like prolonging a pointless, unwinnable war of aggression and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed for no reason and subjecting countless millions to horrors far worse than anything you or I could even comprehend. And that's just like taking a few too many coins from a take-a-penny, is that right? Absolutely fucking not. If you actually try to view the world from a global perspective, if you genuinely believe in equality and treat every Afghan's life as being equally valuable as your next-door neighbor's, then you will quickly find yourself understanding and agreeing with my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 50 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (49 children) This comment is funny because it further reinforces the point: Obama didn't start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghanistan for the Taliban, which as we've seen has been disastrous for that country's girls and women. There are exactly three choices in every general election: The viable party. The other viable party. Not participating in the election at all. You might think there are other options like write-ins, protest votes, or third parties. Unfortunately, those are all permutations of #3: nonparticipation. Nobody here is saying they love Democrats. The party is about as popular as boiled cabbage at a chili competition. But when served with those three choices, participating in the election is important, which narrows it down to #1 or #2, and it's really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. The Democrats sent your brother to war. The Republicans started that war, sent way more people to it, killed more civilians, and made withdrawing impossible. The Democrats are also more likely to offer mental healthcare to your brother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) Fair enough but he kind of did. The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with That's literally the opposite of what you're claiming my position is. My position, like the other person said, is that the problems we have are a result of the economic policy of neoliberalism, enacted by both Reagan and Carter. You're saying that, rather than my position being about criticizing neoliberalism, I "kind of did" say that Reagan was better than Carter, and your supposed evidence of me taking that position is just me saying the problem was the policy of neoliberalism. One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can Lmao, that's utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true. Would you rather get operated on by someone who thinks your heart is a tumor that needs to be removed for the sake of your health, or by someone who wants to remove your heart because they want you dead? The answer is, who gives a shit? Your heart's coming out either way. Why would I care if the first surgeon is "just trying to help?" If we're being so generous with the Democrats' motives, then the only conclusion is that they comically incompetent to the point of being a useless liability. I'm not sure that actually makes them look better than the reality. But again, like I said, I am not St. Peter, I'm not trying to evaluate who's a good person deep down in their heart of hearts. All I care about is what they actually do. You are looking at things from the completely wrong perspective. Get your mind off the pearly gates and look at the actual policy and actual material results of that policy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) You never really explained why neoliberalism is problematic. Neoliberalism is not incompatible with unions, as you seemed to imply, nor is it incompatible with a government that utilizes tax and spend to provide essential services for the public. It can be regulated markets and free trade, and most of the stuff we associate with Reagan's brand of neoliberalism are consequences of horrible tax and social spending policies, not necessarily a consequence of a lighter hand at protectionism. What's the real problem here, that we became more open to importing stuff or that the government abdicated its duty to do anything at all? (Aside from bombing brown people, of course.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The real problem here predates Carter and Reagan and goes back to the New Deal itself. The New Deal was the carrot, along with the stick of the Red Scare, to root out communists and other radicals in the labor movement. The promise was that the government would protect, or at least tolerate unions, so long as they proved their loyalty by engaging in anticommunist witch hunts, such as when communists were kicked out of the AFL/CIO. The effect that this had on unions was that they became weakened, narrowly self-interested, and complacent. Once the unions were broken, and the working class had no ability to wield power or fight back against whatever the government and ruling class decided to do, they could then take steps that would weaken them even further, and at the same time they could cut social programs, because nobody had any power to stop them. Something like a general strike was impossible, because after purging anyone who sounded like a communist, there was no solidarity, no greater vision, and no willingness to really fight, since those are all things that make you sound like a communist. Now, admittedly, from a global perspective, the Chinese people have benefited immensely from offshoring, so whether it's a good or bad thing overall is hard to say. But, good or bad, it's the reason why the US in such a shitty state today, why the government is able to cut social programs, why nobody can do shit to stop anything Trump does, etc. The most direct enemy of the American ruling class are, of course, American workers (and vice versa) so us getting fucked means that they are now able to operate with impunity with nobody to stop them. Regardless, what we need to do now, as a class, is to rebuild organization from the ground up, but this time refusing to punch left and purge radicals, and to instead actively promote solidarity, a greater vision, and a willingness to fight. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (4 children) Yeah imagine making an argument instead of using words you don't understand and expecting lemmings to go along with it because you've built an echo chamber of emotional association. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] jve@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago Lmao, that's utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true. Oh my sweet, sweet summer child. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (85 children) Fair enough but he kind of did. The reason why we're here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with… Yeah we’re here because we chose Reagan over Carter. And out of those choices we picked the one who was the piece of shit. I am pretty sure that Carter would have been capable of reversing course or realizing mistakes. Reagan was all in on the destruction. Same as we’re here because we chose Bush over Gore, Obama over McCain… Trump over Clinton/Harris etc. One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can (even if they fail or get some bad apples). The other is actively (and purposefully) trying to make things worse. Our choices are what got us here. Saying things would be the same is how Republicans keep winning and the Overton Window only seems to move right and never left. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 85 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (74 children) One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can (even if they fail or get some bad apples). Oh my sweet, sweet, summer child. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 74 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (73 children) Game of Thrones sucks and I thought we were well over "bothsides" in 2026. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 73 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children) Why don't you ask a search engine and learn something instead of asking me to educate you? Most people aren't as nice as I am. Next, based on these indicators, we classified all Democratic members of Congress and viable congressional candidates into (or, in some cases, between) three factions. The Left Progressives include members and candidates who support an arms embargo on Israel, accuse the country of genocide and apartheid, and typically receive support from Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption or DSA. The Mainstream Progressives are members or candidates who support conditioning military aid and arms sales to Israel based on human rights and legal standards; use strong language to criticize Israel’s wartime conduct while tending to avoid the terms genocide and apartheid; and generally receive support from J Street. The Pro-Israel Establishment includes members or candidates who oppose conditioning military aid to Israel, generally avoid harsh language when criticizing Israeli policy, and typically receive support from AIPAC and DMFI. By including congressional candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning in November, while also taking into account expected retirements among incumbents, we were able to estimate not only the size and influence of each of the three factions in the current Congress but also within the Congress that will take shape after the November elections. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/democratic-party-2026/ So those first two factions. These factions are absent in the Republican party. This isn't hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (66 children) Yeah I don’t get it from some of these people. One side took a dollar from the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny tray and stole a pack of smokes. The other side shot the brown teller behind the counter and emptied the till. Then lit the store on fire while yelling about the brown guy being an illegal immigrant. We’re talking about orders of magnitude of shenanigans. And being wrong like Carter and being a traitorous, lying sack of shit like Reagan. Are completely different things. The both sides are the same crowd are going to get us all killed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 66 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) Reagan was far worse than Carter. Carter was a neoliberal and set the ball in motion for a lot of the worst that capitalism has reeked on the planet Two things can be true. both sides are the same I wasn’t saying that, but looks like that other guy went off the rails so good luck to him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (12 children) Both of the people I was talking to tried to defend Obama's continued occupation of Afghanistan, so I'd consider myself justified in going off the rails. Or rather, they're the one's that went off the rails. How anyone could defend the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, especially now, when it's undeniable that it accomplished nothing, is hard to comprehend. How anyone could do so while thinking that they're anywhere remotely near the left, or that they have even a sliver of morality in their body, is beyond me entirely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago True and yeah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (50 children) My brother came home from Afghanistan with severe PTSD and started shooting meth to cope with it. My family was torn apart as he threw around all sorts of paranoid accusations and threatened to harm himself or others, always in language just vague enough to be actionable. He wound up picking up one of his many guns, driving out to some random, innocent person's house, and, fortunately, got shot in the arm by the cops who'd followed him there. I spent a full year of my life essentially being an on-call 9-1-1 operator. I quit using social media accounts for fear that he'd see I was online. But the pain and trauma that I experienced was nothing compared to what I could see in my mother's eyes. That was the most traumatic experience of my life. But I fully understand that it was nothing compared to the trauma he experienced, which was, in turn, nothing compared to the trauma the Afghan people experienced. What I experience, this second-, third-hand exposure to the horrors of war, it's literally just a first-world problem. But that tiny glimpse into the things the media doesn't like talk about, was enough. Who was the president, the commander-in-chief, who ordered him over there? It was the great, liberal progressive hero, Mr. Barack Obama. A guy who was, "just trying to do the right thing" but who occasionally makes some teensy weensy mistakes like prolonging a pointless, unwinnable war of aggression and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed for no reason and subjecting countless millions to horrors far worse than anything you or I could even comprehend. And that's just like taking a few too many coins from a take-a-penny, is that right? Absolutely fucking not. If you actually try to view the world from a global perspective, if you genuinely believe in equality and treat every Afghan's life as being equally valuable as your next-door neighbor's, then you will quickly find yourself understanding and agreeing with my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 50 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (49 children) This comment is funny because it further reinforces the point: Obama didn't start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghanistan for the Taliban, which as we've seen has been disastrous for that country's girls and women. There are exactly three choices in every general election: The viable party. The other viable party. Not participating in the election at all. You might think there are other options like write-ins, protest votes, or third parties. Unfortunately, those are all permutations of #3: nonparticipation. Nobody here is saying they love Democrats. The party is about as popular as boiled cabbage at a chili competition. But when served with those three choices, participating in the election is important, which narrows it down to #1 or #2, and it's really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. The Democrats sent your brother to war. The Republicans started that war, sent way more people to it, killed more civilians, and made withdrawing impossible. The Democrats are also more likely to offer mental healthcare to your brother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) Fair enough but he kind of did. The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with That's literally the opposite of what you're claiming my position is. My position, like the other person said, is that the problems we have are a result of the economic policy of neoliberalism, enacted by both Reagan and Carter. You're saying that, rather than my position being about criticizing neoliberalism, I "kind of did" say that Reagan was better than Carter, and your supposed evidence of me taking that position is just me saying the problem was the policy of neoliberalism. One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can Lmao, that's utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true. Would you rather get operated on by someone who thinks your heart is a tumor that needs to be removed for the sake of your health, or by someone who wants to remove your heart because they want you dead? The answer is, who gives a shit? Your heart's coming out either way. Why would I care if the first surgeon is "just trying to help?" If we're being so generous with the Democrats' motives, then the only conclusion is that they comically incompetent to the point of being a useless liability. I'm not sure that actually makes them look better than the reality. But again, like I said, I am not St. Peter, I'm not trying to evaluate who's a good person deep down in their heart of hearts. All I care about is what they actually do. You are looking at things from the completely wrong perspective. Get your mind off the pearly gates and look at the actual policy and actual material results of that policy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) You never really explained why neoliberalism is problematic. Neoliberalism is not incompatible with unions, as you seemed to imply, nor is it incompatible with a government that utilizes tax and spend to provide essential services for the public. It can be regulated markets and free trade, and most of the stuff we associate with Reagan's brand of neoliberalism are consequences of horrible tax and social spending policies, not necessarily a consequence of a lighter hand at protectionism. What's the real problem here, that we became more open to importing stuff or that the government abdicated its duty to do anything at all? (Aside from bombing brown people, of course.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The real problem here predates Carter and Reagan and goes back to the New Deal itself. The New Deal was the carrot, along with the stick of the Red Scare, to root out communists and other radicals in the labor movement. The promise was that the government would protect, or at least tolerate unions, so long as they proved their loyalty by engaging in anticommunist witch hunts, such as when communists were kicked out of the AFL/CIO. The effect that this had on unions was that they became weakened, narrowly self-interested, and complacent. Once the unions were broken, and the working class had no ability to wield power or fight back against whatever the government and ruling class decided to do, they could then take steps that would weaken them even further, and at the same time they could cut social programs, because nobody had any power to stop them. Something like a general strike was impossible, because after purging anyone who sounded like a communist, there was no solidarity, no greater vision, and no willingness to really fight, since those are all things that make you sound like a communist. Now, admittedly, from a global perspective, the Chinese people have benefited immensely from offshoring, so whether it's a good or bad thing overall is hard to say. But, good or bad, it's the reason why the US in such a shitty state today, why the government is able to cut social programs, why nobody can do shit to stop anything Trump does, etc. The most direct enemy of the American ruling class are, of course, American workers (and vice versa) so us getting fucked means that they are now able to operate with impunity with nobody to stop them. Regardless, what we need to do now, as a class, is to rebuild organization from the ground up, but this time refusing to punch left and purge radicals, and to instead actively promote solidarity, a greater vision, and a willingness to fight. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (4 children) Yeah imagine making an argument instead of using words you don't understand and expecting lemmings to go along with it because you've built an echo chamber of emotional association. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] jve@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago Lmao, that's utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true. Oh my sweet, sweet summer child. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jve@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (74 children) One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can (even if they fail or get some bad apples). Oh my sweet, sweet, summer child. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 74 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (73 children) Game of Thrones sucks and I thought we were well over "bothsides" in 2026. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 73 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children) Why don't you ask a search engine and learn something instead of asking me to educate you? Most people aren't as nice as I am. Next, based on these indicators, we classified all Democratic members of Congress and viable congressional candidates into (or, in some cases, between) three factions. The Left Progressives include members and candidates who support an arms embargo on Israel, accuse the country of genocide and apartheid, and typically receive support from Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption or DSA. The Mainstream Progressives are members or candidates who support conditioning military aid and arms sales to Israel based on human rights and legal standards; use strong language to criticize Israel’s wartime conduct while tending to avoid the terms genocide and apartheid; and generally receive support from J Street. The Pro-Israel Establishment includes members or candidates who oppose conditioning military aid to Israel, generally avoid harsh language when criticizing Israeli policy, and typically receive support from AIPAC and DMFI. By including congressional candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning in November, while also taking into account expected retirements among incumbents, we were able to estimate not only the size and influence of each of the three factions in the current Congress but also within the Congress that will take shape after the November elections. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/democratic-party-2026/ So those first two factions. These factions are absent in the Republican party. This isn't hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (66 children) Yeah I don’t get it from some of these people. One side took a dollar from the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny tray and stole a pack of smokes. The other side shot the brown teller behind the counter and emptied the till. Then lit the store on fire while yelling about the brown guy being an illegal immigrant. We’re talking about orders of magnitude of shenanigans. And being wrong like Carter and being a traitorous, lying sack of shit like Reagan. Are completely different things. The both sides are the same crowd are going to get us all killed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 66 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) Reagan was far worse than Carter. Carter was a neoliberal and set the ball in motion for a lot of the worst that capitalism has reeked on the planet Two things can be true. both sides are the same I wasn’t saying that, but looks like that other guy went off the rails so good luck to him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (12 children) Both of the people I was talking to tried to defend Obama's continued occupation of Afghanistan, so I'd consider myself justified in going off the rails. Or rather, they're the one's that went off the rails. How anyone could defend the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, especially now, when it's undeniable that it accomplished nothing, is hard to comprehend. How anyone could do so while thinking that they're anywhere remotely near the left, or that they have even a sliver of morality in their body, is beyond me entirely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago True and yeah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (50 children) My brother came home from Afghanistan with severe PTSD and started shooting meth to cope with it. My family was torn apart as he threw around all sorts of paranoid accusations and threatened to harm himself or others, always in language just vague enough to be actionable. He wound up picking up one of his many guns, driving out to some random, innocent person's house, and, fortunately, got shot in the arm by the cops who'd followed him there. I spent a full year of my life essentially being an on-call 9-1-1 operator. I quit using social media accounts for fear that he'd see I was online. But the pain and trauma that I experienced was nothing compared to what I could see in my mother's eyes. That was the most traumatic experience of my life. But I fully understand that it was nothing compared to the trauma he experienced, which was, in turn, nothing compared to the trauma the Afghan people experienced. What I experience, this second-, third-hand exposure to the horrors of war, it's literally just a first-world problem. But that tiny glimpse into the things the media doesn't like talk about, was enough. Who was the president, the commander-in-chief, who ordered him over there? It was the great, liberal progressive hero, Mr. Barack Obama. A guy who was, "just trying to do the right thing" but who occasionally makes some teensy weensy mistakes like prolonging a pointless, unwinnable war of aggression and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed for no reason and subjecting countless millions to horrors far worse than anything you or I could even comprehend. And that's just like taking a few too many coins from a take-a-penny, is that right? Absolutely fucking not. If you actually try to view the world from a global perspective, if you genuinely believe in equality and treat every Afghan's life as being equally valuable as your next-door neighbor's, then you will quickly find yourself understanding and agreeing with my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 50 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (49 children) This comment is funny because it further reinforces the point: Obama didn't start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghanistan for the Taliban, which as we've seen has been disastrous for that country's girls and women. There are exactly three choices in every general election: The viable party. The other viable party. Not participating in the election at all. You might think there are other options like write-ins, protest votes, or third parties. Unfortunately, those are all permutations of #3: nonparticipation. Nobody here is saying they love Democrats. The party is about as popular as boiled cabbage at a chili competition. But when served with those three choices, participating in the election is important, which narrows it down to #1 or #2, and it's really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. The Democrats sent your brother to war. The Republicans started that war, sent way more people to it, killed more civilians, and made withdrawing impossible. The Democrats are also more likely to offer mental healthcare to your brother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (73 children) Game of Thrones sucks and I thought we were well over "bothsides" in 2026. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 73 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children) Why don't you ask a search engine and learn something instead of asking me to educate you? Most people aren't as nice as I am. Next, based on these indicators, we classified all Democratic members of Congress and viable congressional candidates into (or, in some cases, between) three factions. The Left Progressives include members and candidates who support an arms embargo on Israel, accuse the country of genocide and apartheid, and typically receive support from Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption or DSA. The Mainstream Progressives are members or candidates who support conditioning military aid and arms sales to Israel based on human rights and legal standards; use strong language to criticize Israel’s wartime conduct while tending to avoid the terms genocide and apartheid; and generally receive support from J Street. The Pro-Israel Establishment includes members or candidates who oppose conditioning military aid to Israel, generally avoid harsh language when criticizing Israeli policy, and typically receive support from AIPAC and DMFI. By including congressional candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning in November, while also taking into account expected retirements among incumbents, we were able to estimate not only the size and influence of each of the three factions in the current Congress but also within the Congress that will take shape after the November elections. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/democratic-party-2026/ So those first two factions. These factions are absent in the Republican party. This isn't hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (66 children) Yeah I don’t get it from some of these people. One side took a dollar from the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny tray and stole a pack of smokes. The other side shot the brown teller behind the counter and emptied the till. Then lit the store on fire while yelling about the brown guy being an illegal immigrant. We’re talking about orders of magnitude of shenanigans. And being wrong like Carter and being a traitorous, lying sack of shit like Reagan. Are completely different things. The both sides are the same crowd are going to get us all killed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 66 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) Reagan was far worse than Carter. Carter was a neoliberal and set the ball in motion for a lot of the worst that capitalism has reeked on the planet Two things can be true. both sides are the same I wasn’t saying that, but looks like that other guy went off the rails so good luck to him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (12 children) Both of the people I was talking to tried to defend Obama's continued occupation of Afghanistan, so I'd consider myself justified in going off the rails. Or rather, they're the one's that went off the rails. How anyone could defend the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, especially now, when it's undeniable that it accomplished nothing, is hard to comprehend. How anyone could do so while thinking that they're anywhere remotely near the left, or that they have even a sliver of morality in their body, is beyond me entirely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago True and yeah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (50 children) My brother came home from Afghanistan with severe PTSD and started shooting meth to cope with it. My family was torn apart as he threw around all sorts of paranoid accusations and threatened to harm himself or others, always in language just vague enough to be actionable. He wound up picking up one of his many guns, driving out to some random, innocent person's house, and, fortunately, got shot in the arm by the cops who'd followed him there. I spent a full year of my life essentially being an on-call 9-1-1 operator. I quit using social media accounts for fear that he'd see I was online. But the pain and trauma that I experienced was nothing compared to what I could see in my mother's eyes. That was the most traumatic experience of my life. But I fully understand that it was nothing compared to the trauma he experienced, which was, in turn, nothing compared to the trauma the Afghan people experienced. What I experience, this second-, third-hand exposure to the horrors of war, it's literally just a first-world problem. But that tiny glimpse into the things the media doesn't like talk about, was enough. Who was the president, the commander-in-chief, who ordered him over there? It was the great, liberal progressive hero, Mr. Barack Obama. A guy who was, "just trying to do the right thing" but who occasionally makes some teensy weensy mistakes like prolonging a pointless, unwinnable war of aggression and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed for no reason and subjecting countless millions to horrors far worse than anything you or I could even comprehend. And that's just like taking a few too many coins from a take-a-penny, is that right? Absolutely fucking not. If you actually try to view the world from a global perspective, if you genuinely believe in equality and treat every Afghan's life as being equally valuable as your next-door neighbor's, then you will quickly find yourself understanding and agreeing with my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 50 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (49 children) This comment is funny because it further reinforces the point: Obama didn't start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghanistan for the Taliban, which as we've seen has been disastrous for that country's girls and women. There are exactly three choices in every general election: The viable party. The other viable party. Not participating in the election at all. You might think there are other options like write-ins, protest votes, or third parties. Unfortunately, those are all permutations of #3: nonparticipation. Nobody here is saying they love Democrats. The party is about as popular as boiled cabbage at a chili competition. But when served with those three choices, participating in the election is important, which narrows it down to #1 or #2, and it's really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. The Democrats sent your brother to war. The Republicans started that war, sent way more people to it, killed more civilians, and made withdrawing impossible. The Democrats are also more likely to offer mental healthcare to your brother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children) Why don't you ask a search engine and learn something instead of asking me to educate you? Most people aren't as nice as I am. Next, based on these indicators, we classified all Democratic members of Congress and viable congressional candidates into (or, in some cases, between) three factions. The Left Progressives include members and candidates who support an arms embargo on Israel, accuse the country of genocide and apartheid, and typically receive support from Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption or DSA. The Mainstream Progressives are members or candidates who support conditioning military aid and arms sales to Israel based on human rights and legal standards; use strong language to criticize Israel’s wartime conduct while tending to avoid the terms genocide and apartheid; and generally receive support from J Street. The Pro-Israel Establishment includes members or candidates who oppose conditioning military aid to Israel, generally avoid harsh language when criticizing Israeli policy, and typically receive support from AIPAC and DMFI. By including congressional candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning in November, while also taking into account expected retirements among incumbents, we were able to estimate not only the size and influence of each of the three factions in the current Congress but also within the Congress that will take shape after the November elections. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/democratic-party-2026/ So those first two factions. These factions are absent in the Republican party. This isn't hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children) Why don't you ask a search engine and learn something instead of asking me to educate you? Most people aren't as nice as I am. Next, based on these indicators, we classified all Democratic members of Congress and viable congressional candidates into (or, in some cases, between) three factions. The Left Progressives include members and candidates who support an arms embargo on Israel, accuse the country of genocide and apartheid, and typically receive support from Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption or DSA. The Mainstream Progressives are members or candidates who support conditioning military aid and arms sales to Israel based on human rights and legal standards; use strong language to criticize Israel’s wartime conduct while tending to avoid the terms genocide and apartheid; and generally receive support from J Street. The Pro-Israel Establishment includes members or candidates who oppose conditioning military aid to Israel, generally avoid harsh language when criticizing Israeli policy, and typically receive support from AIPAC and DMFI. By including congressional candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning in November, while also taking into account expected retirements among incumbents, we were able to estimate not only the size and influence of each of the three factions in the current Congress but also within the Congress that will take shape after the November elections. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/democratic-party-2026/ So those first two factions. These factions are absent in the Republican party. This isn't hard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) Oh so you can't read. Well hopefully someone literate learns from this thread. Have a good one! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago I'm not sure what "this" is but you seem to be doing even worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (66 children) Yeah I don’t get it from some of these people. One side took a dollar from the take-a-penny-leave-a-penny tray and stole a pack of smokes. The other side shot the brown teller behind the counter and emptied the till. Then lit the store on fire while yelling about the brown guy being an illegal immigrant. We’re talking about orders of magnitude of shenanigans. And being wrong like Carter and being a traitorous, lying sack of shit like Reagan. Are completely different things. The both sides are the same crowd are going to get us all killed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 66 child comments replies: [–] jve@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) Reagan was far worse than Carter. Carter was a neoliberal and set the ball in motion for a lot of the worst that capitalism has reeked on the planet Two things can be true. both sides are the same I wasn’t saying that, but looks like that other guy went off the rails so good luck to him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (12 children) Both of the people I was talking to tried to defend Obama's continued occupation of Afghanistan, so I'd consider myself justified in going off the rails. Or rather, they're the one's that went off the rails. How anyone could defend the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, especially now, when it's undeniable that it accomplished nothing, is hard to comprehend. How anyone could do so while thinking that they're anywhere remotely near the left, or that they have even a sliver of morality in their body, is beyond me entirely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago True and yeah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (50 children) My brother came home from Afghanistan with severe PTSD and started shooting meth to cope with it. My family was torn apart as he threw around all sorts of paranoid accusations and threatened to harm himself or others, always in language just vague enough to be actionable. He wound up picking up one of his many guns, driving out to some random, innocent person's house, and, fortunately, got shot in the arm by the cops who'd followed him there. I spent a full year of my life essentially being an on-call 9-1-1 operator. I quit using social media accounts for fear that he'd see I was online. But the pain and trauma that I experienced was nothing compared to what I could see in my mother's eyes. That was the most traumatic experience of my life. But I fully understand that it was nothing compared to the trauma he experienced, which was, in turn, nothing compared to the trauma the Afghan people experienced. What I experience, this second-, third-hand exposure to the horrors of war, it's literally just a first-world problem. But that tiny glimpse into the things the media doesn't like talk about, was enough. Who was the president, the commander-in-chief, who ordered him over there? It was the great, liberal progressive hero, Mr. Barack Obama. A guy who was, "just trying to do the right thing" but who occasionally makes some teensy weensy mistakes like prolonging a pointless, unwinnable war of aggression and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed for no reason and subjecting countless millions to horrors far worse than anything you or I could even comprehend. And that's just like taking a few too many coins from a take-a-penny, is that right? Absolutely fucking not. If you actually try to view the world from a global perspective, if you genuinely believe in equality and treat every Afghan's life as being equally valuable as your next-door neighbor's, then you will quickly find yourself understanding and agreeing with my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 50 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (49 children) This comment is funny because it further reinforces the point: Obama didn't start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghanistan for the Taliban, which as we've seen has been disastrous for that country's girls and women. There are exactly three choices in every general election: The viable party. The other viable party. Not participating in the election at all. You might think there are other options like write-ins, protest votes, or third parties. Unfortunately, those are all permutations of #3: nonparticipation. Nobody here is saying they love Democrats. The party is about as popular as boiled cabbage at a chili competition. But when served with those three choices, participating in the election is important, which narrows it down to #1 or #2, and it's really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. The Democrats sent your brother to war. The Republicans started that war, sent way more people to it, killed more civilians, and made withdrawing impossible. The Democrats are also more likely to offer mental healthcare to your brother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] jve@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) Reagan was far worse than Carter. Carter was a neoliberal and set the ball in motion for a lot of the worst that capitalism has reeked on the planet Two things can be true. both sides are the same I wasn’t saying that, but looks like that other guy went off the rails so good luck to him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (12 children) Both of the people I was talking to tried to defend Obama's continued occupation of Afghanistan, so I'd consider myself justified in going off the rails. Or rather, they're the one's that went off the rails. How anyone could defend the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, especially now, when it's undeniable that it accomplished nothing, is hard to comprehend. How anyone could do so while thinking that they're anywhere remotely near the left, or that they have even a sliver of morality in their body, is beyond me entirely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago True and yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (12 children) Both of the people I was talking to tried to defend Obama's continued occupation of Afghanistan, so I'd consider myself justified in going off the rails. Or rather, they're the one's that went off the rails. How anyone could defend the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, especially now, when it's undeniable that it accomplished nothing, is hard to comprehend. How anyone could do so while thinking that they're anywhere remotely near the left, or that they have even a sliver of morality in their body, is beyond me entirely. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Exactly my point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jve@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (9 children) Yeah it’s all just back to “yeah but my side isn’t as bad as your side” when really it’s just classic class warfare and we’re all trapped in this manufactured bullshit fight. Democrats are controlled opposition for the billionaire class, and first pass the post makes it damn hard to get out of this ratchet effect pushing us ever farther right. Sure, I’ll tactically vote for the lesser of two evils. Definitely vote. Maybe we can at least slow things down, and god willing get an actually progressive on the ballot, somewhere, but I do it with my nose held shut. Not voting doesn’t send any message at all. I don’t know if MLK was right about the arc of the universe bending toward justice, but I hope so. I just don’t see things getting better unless we can do some good old fashioned trust busting and take at least some control back from the Epstein class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (8 children) Voting for controlled opposition is the opposite of being tactical. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (6 children) If you like. Depending on the race, if there is someone who isn't controlled opposition or a genocidal warmonger, then voting for them could be worthwhile. Otherwise, literally all I'm asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, "No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians" and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, "You don't get my vote." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Did you not read my comment? Otherwise, literally all I’m asking you is to have some standards somewhere and to do something to actually hold politicians accountable to those standards. And if you can agree to that, then obviously no standard could possibly be more reasonable than, “No mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians” and no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children) Might want to work on your reading comprehension. no form of accountability could possibly be more reasonable than, “You don’t get my vote.” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago I only started downvoting your posts when you started acting like a dick and pretending I didn't answer things I very clearly did. So shove it up my ass and let the fascists do the fascist speed run. Voting for fascists, including moderate fascists, is how you enable a fascist speed run. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago True and yeah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (50 children) My brother came home from Afghanistan with severe PTSD and started shooting meth to cope with it. My family was torn apart as he threw around all sorts of paranoid accusations and threatened to harm himself or others, always in language just vague enough to be actionable. He wound up picking up one of his many guns, driving out to some random, innocent person's house, and, fortunately, got shot in the arm by the cops who'd followed him there. I spent a full year of my life essentially being an on-call 9-1-1 operator. I quit using social media accounts for fear that he'd see I was online. But the pain and trauma that I experienced was nothing compared to what I could see in my mother's eyes. That was the most traumatic experience of my life. But I fully understand that it was nothing compared to the trauma he experienced, which was, in turn, nothing compared to the trauma the Afghan people experienced. What I experience, this second-, third-hand exposure to the horrors of war, it's literally just a first-world problem. But that tiny glimpse into the things the media doesn't like talk about, was enough. Who was the president, the commander-in-chief, who ordered him over there? It was the great, liberal progressive hero, Mr. Barack Obama. A guy who was, "just trying to do the right thing" but who occasionally makes some teensy weensy mistakes like prolonging a pointless, unwinnable war of aggression and getting hundreds of thousands of people killed for no reason and subjecting countless millions to horrors far worse than anything you or I could even comprehend. And that's just like taking a few too many coins from a take-a-penny, is that right? Absolutely fucking not. If you actually try to view the world from a global perspective, if you genuinely believe in equality and treat every Afghan's life as being equally valuable as your next-door neighbor's, then you will quickly find yourself understanding and agreeing with my perspective. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 50 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (49 children) This comment is funny because it further reinforces the point: Obama didn't start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghanistan for the Taliban, which as we've seen has been disastrous for that country's girls and women. There are exactly three choices in every general election: The viable party. The other viable party. Not participating in the election at all. You might think there are other options like write-ins, protest votes, or third parties. Unfortunately, those are all permutations of #3: nonparticipation. Nobody here is saying they love Democrats. The party is about as popular as boiled cabbage at a chili competition. But when served with those three choices, participating in the election is important, which narrows it down to #1 or #2, and it's really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. The Democrats sent your brother to war. The Republicans started that war, sent way more people to it, killed more civilians, and made withdrawing impossible. The Democrats are also more likely to offer mental healthcare to your brother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (49 children) This comment is funny because it further reinforces the point: Obama didn't start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghanistan for the Taliban, which as we've seen has been disastrous for that country's girls and women. There are exactly three choices in every general election: The viable party. The other viable party. Not participating in the election at all. You might think there are other options like write-ins, protest votes, or third parties. Unfortunately, those are all permutations of #3: nonparticipation. Nobody here is saying they love Democrats. The party is about as popular as boiled cabbage at a chili competition. But when served with those three choices, participating in the election is important, which narrows it down to #1 or #2, and it's really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. The Democrats sent your brother to war. The Republicans started that war, sent way more people to it, killed more civilians, and made withdrawing impossible. The Democrats are also more likely to offer mental healthcare to your brother. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 49 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (48 children) Obama didn’t start that war, and he was unable to cleanly exit it without leaving Afghan for the Taliban. Gasp! Oh no! He couldn't leave or the Taliban would be left in charge! Hey, remind me again who exactly is in charge of Afghanistan right now? The Taliban were always going to win because the war was unwinnable from the first day, and it was even more unwinnable by the time Obama took office. He just had to pour countless lives into it first to accomplish nothing whatsoever. What, just so we could say we gave it the "ol' college try?" and it’s really not hard to choose between the GOP and the Democrats. Let me be absolutely clear: I would sooner die than even consider supporting anyone responsible for the war. There is no choice to be made. You could drag me into a voting booth at gunpoint, and I'd tell you to pull the trigger. This is the thing that you fuckers need to get through your thick fucking skulls. What they did is fundamentally unforgivable, and they should be behind bars. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 48 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Yes, that's correct. And I haven't learned my lesson and I'm not going to. Guess you'd better do everything you can to ensure your next candidate doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on their hands. Because I'm just too stupid to understand why it's acceptable to vote for a mass murderer, and no matter how you explain it, I'm simply not smart enough to ever understand. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago Have another drink. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. WHY THE FUCK NOT? That's literally exactly what Biden did, the only difference is that we spend an extra decade pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure, to accomplish NOTHING. "Realist," my ass. Realism was recognizing that the war was lost from the minute it started, because the occupation could not last forever and the moment it ended the puppet government would collapse. Calling yourself a "realist," while pretending that a decades long occupation was a "mistake" is completely absurd. There's plenty of room for nuance, on certain topics. Not on this. Not the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. If Trump killed a hundred thousand people in New York City, would you be talking about "nuance?" Was the Holocaust "nuanced?" There's a fucking line to be drawn, and there's exactly one reason why Afghans are on one side of the line to me and the other to you, and it's that you don't see them as actual human beings. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (4 children) You’re an extremist and live in a fantasy world where nuance doesn’t exist and your extreme idea of morality is the only option. Us, the realists, who understand that Obama couldn’t just pack up and leave also understand that you can’t understand that. I really don't get how Libs think that Democrats just can't stop war and murder. It's actually not that hard, in fact, most people go their whole lives without invading another country, and murdering a bunch of innocent people. But when it comes to Democrats, that's just "what they have to do", for some reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago The US government objectively does not represent the people, and never has. It has always represented the oligarchy. Previously: The US government was never not captured by the bourgeoisie, because the US was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. BBC: [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy The game is rigged. The election cycle’s pomp and circumstance is to divert your energy and attention from the fact that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago Bush ran on avoiding foreign interventionism, and invaded. Obama ran on reducing involvement in the Middle East, then increased involvement. Trump ran on being an "outsider," distancing himself from the establishment in both parties who had conducted the war, then he continued the war. When did Americans ever have the opportunity to choose anyone different? For 20 years, we were never given a choice. Because when the ruling class really wants something, it gets it. Because the US is not a democracy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago Actually, our government famously does not represent our people. That's like, one of the fundamental problems that we have here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (38 children) K well as long as you're unwilling to vote strategically, you'll continue to allow evil fascists to take over the US. The rest of us will try to elect progressives in primaries and support the most left-leaning viable candidate in the general election because that's how you defeat fascists if your society isn't ready for a revolution yet, and ours isn't. Too many full bellies and entertained morons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 38 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (37 children) Oh no! If the evil fascists take over, they might start a war of aggression that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people or something! Just imagine! There's a discussion to be had about potentially supporting imperfect candidates, but every single one of you takes it to a ridiculous extreme, such that even outright genocide is no biggie. It's completely ridiculous, utterly absurd. Frankly, yours is not a view that should even be tolerated in society. A complete and total refusal to hold politicians to any degree of accountability for literally anything, treating them as completely above the law. This is exactly why the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. You are the moderate wing of fascism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 37 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago I love how libs can't address the points that other people make, and have to keep making up arguments that nobody is saying, to yell at. Also, the "person who supports genocidists is mad that their genocidist didn't get elected" is such a silly concept to me. Then they turn around and yell at the anti-genocidists for "being complicit". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago I'm definitely enjoying it. Death to America! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (32 children) Worse from talking to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 32 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago I love how Libs always try to blame others for their mistakes. "If you didn't vote for the party that bombs kids, supports rapists, and backed a genocide, it's because you actually like fascism!" This is why the term BlueMAGA works so well: Because Libs can't see their own cultish hypocrisy, even when it's staring at them in the mirror. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (29 children) I didn't plunge anybody's homeland into fascism. It's just that you'd just rather punch left than blame the people actually responsible. There have been many times throughout history where people have considered genocide as acceptable to prevent a greater evil. Every single one of them was wrong. "If the enemy is at the gates, we need to round up and exterminate anyone of their race, because if they open the gates to them, they'll kill us all. The lesser evil is for just some people to die." That is the level of morality that you're operating on. Go ahead and lecture me on what kind of day I "deserve," as if willingness to sacrifice the lives of innocents is somehow a moral virtue and not a sign of your spinelessness and depravity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 29 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago Harris decided that supporting genocide was more important than keeping Trump out of office, but for some weird reason, I'm guessing we won't hear you blame her. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children) Sorry, but you helped. Well then, you're welcome. Because if I "helped" Trump get elected, then by the exact same logic I "helped" Biden get elected, and you can rest assured that I will be "helping" your favorite genocidal warmonger next time. You decided that your morality was more important than your efficacy. Yes, obviously. That's what having morals means. Do you believe it is morally wrong to have morals? Because you might want to examine the very obvious logical contradiction there. One day you will grow up and regret your decisions like I did. If I knew that I would wake up tomorrow thinking that, I would kill myself tonight, without hesitation. One day, perhaps, you will grow up and realize the true extent of what you're supporting. It's only possible for you to think the way you do because of your blissful ignorance of what your people are doing on the other side of the wall. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (2 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (22 children) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.” It's insane that this is actually the second time in my life that someone has tried to twist and bastardize that quote to try to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. The other was a Trump voter. "Evil triumphing" is when hundreds of thousands of civilians get murdered. "Doing nothing" is when you refuse to lift a finger oppose the people responsible. What the two of you fail to understand is that you are the evil that triumphs when good people do nothing. And what you do is even worse than nothing, because you actively support them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 22 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children) Being a keyboard warrior on a site nobody uses isn’t “doing something.” I never claimed that it was. I think I’ll help end the genocide you’ve enabled by sending $25 to ActBlue on your brother’s behalf. Don't stop there. I also enabled the Holocaust and helped Hitler gain power by virtue of sitting on my ass instead of inventing a time machine and going back to stop him. If you go back and donate $25 to Mussolini on behalf of the victims of the Holocaust, my horrible crime could be undone. I will say, by the way, that my brother is by far the most far-right person I know, like OAN and shit. Donating on ActBlue "on his behalf" is funny enough that I kind of want you to just for the bit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (18 children) I don't really care either way. From the moment you defended the war in Afghanistan, I hate you as much as I hate them. An imperialist gives money to an imperialist organization, what's changed, really? Both of you are my enemies, I would never expect you to do anything different. They kill for you and you pay them for it. It is kind of strange, though. I wonder if there's a starving person out there whose life could be saved by a donation. By not donating to them, you're helping to kill them. Doesn't that make you an accessory to murder, even by your own logic? Certainly one of the moral frameworks of all time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies)
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (17 children) Good point. If my $25 was the only thing standing in the way of a starving person being murdered, and I knew that, I would be a total piece of shit for giving my $25 to someone else instead... does this sound familiar to you? If you'd prefer, I'll go grab five tubs of peanut butter and drop them off at the food pantry. That'll be about $25 if I buy the name brand. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (16 children) I'd greatly prefer that, yes. Then you'd be actually helping people instead of hurting them. Failing to help someone in need can be a moral failing, but it much less of one than actively harming a person. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give all that you have to the poor, but I'm not going to accuse people of "murder" based on that, and I don't think it would be reasonable to. One of the problems you people have is that you think you've found the objective answers to philosophy just by going with your first instinct, without even realizing it's what you're doing. You don't see your assumptions the same way a fish doesn't notice water. You don't consider that they could be wrong because you don't identify them in the first place. And so you wind up with this contradiction of trying to scold me for having morals, because your morals, to you, are not moral beliefs at all, but simply "common sense." So long as you see things that way, you will never be able to understand the perspectives of people who disagree with you, or speak their language. And so you will be building a political coalition where, "Don't murder hundreds of thousands of innocents" is considered an unacceptable imposition, where everyone is expected to put the interests of the party above even their deepest held convictions. It seems like that coalition would be quite small. In practice of course, it's only the left that's expected to make such sacrifices. When a centrist complains that the Democrats are too far left on a particular topic, the party bends over backwards to accommodate their concerns. We are the only ones expected to abandon everything we care about and submit, and we are the only ones the party attacks so openly, denouncing us as "antisemites" whenever anyone says that Palestinians should have rights. As someone who doesn't even subscribe to your framework of "Lesser-Evilism," and who see it as both unexamined and utterly ridiculous, why on earth would I bend the knee to a party like that? But most of you can't even conceive of someone who doesn't believe in Lesser-Evilism, because you don't even realize it's a belief, again, like water to a fish. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments load more comments (16 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago Better that they understand we won't be swayed by words. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) Fair enough but he kind of did. The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with That's literally the opposite of what you're claiming my position is. My position, like the other person said, is that the problems we have are a result of the economic policy of neoliberalism, enacted by both Reagan and Carter. You're saying that, rather than my position being about criticizing neoliberalism, I "kind of did" say that Reagan was better than Carter, and your supposed evidence of me taking that position is just me saying the problem was the policy of neoliberalism. One side is trying to do the right thing as best they can Lmao, that's utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true. Would you rather get operated on by someone who thinks your heart is a tumor that needs to be removed for the sake of your health, or by someone who wants to remove your heart because they want you dead? The answer is, who gives a shit? Your heart's coming out either way. Why would I care if the first surgeon is "just trying to help?" If we're being so generous with the Democrats' motives, then the only conclusion is that they comically incompetent to the point of being a useless liability. I'm not sure that actually makes them look better than the reality. But again, like I said, I am not St. Peter, I'm not trying to evaluate who's a good person deep down in their heart of hearts. All I care about is what they actually do. You are looking at things from the completely wrong perspective. Get your mind off the pearly gates and look at the actual policy and actual material results of that policy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) You never really explained why neoliberalism is problematic. Neoliberalism is not incompatible with unions, as you seemed to imply, nor is it incompatible with a government that utilizes tax and spend to provide essential services for the public. It can be regulated markets and free trade, and most of the stuff we associate with Reagan's brand of neoliberalism are consequences of horrible tax and social spending policies, not necessarily a consequence of a lighter hand at protectionism. What's the real problem here, that we became more open to importing stuff or that the government abdicated its duty to do anything at all? (Aside from bombing brown people, of course.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The real problem here predates Carter and Reagan and goes back to the New Deal itself. The New Deal was the carrot, along with the stick of the Red Scare, to root out communists and other radicals in the labor movement. The promise was that the government would protect, or at least tolerate unions, so long as they proved their loyalty by engaging in anticommunist witch hunts, such as when communists were kicked out of the AFL/CIO. The effect that this had on unions was that they became weakened, narrowly self-interested, and complacent. Once the unions were broken, and the working class had no ability to wield power or fight back against whatever the government and ruling class decided to do, they could then take steps that would weaken them even further, and at the same time they could cut social programs, because nobody had any power to stop them. Something like a general strike was impossible, because after purging anyone who sounded like a communist, there was no solidarity, no greater vision, and no willingness to really fight, since those are all things that make you sound like a communist. Now, admittedly, from a global perspective, the Chinese people have benefited immensely from offshoring, so whether it's a good or bad thing overall is hard to say. But, good or bad, it's the reason why the US in such a shitty state today, why the government is able to cut social programs, why nobody can do shit to stop anything Trump does, etc. The most direct enemy of the American ruling class are, of course, American workers (and vice versa) so us getting fucked means that they are now able to operate with impunity with nobody to stop them. Regardless, what we need to do now, as a class, is to rebuild organization from the ground up, but this time refusing to punch left and purge radicals, and to instead actively promote solidarity, a greater vision, and a willingness to fight. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (4 children) Yeah imagine making an argument instead of using words you don't understand and expecting lemmings to go along with it because you've built an echo chamber of emotional association. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (7 children) You never really explained why neoliberalism is problematic. Neoliberalism is not incompatible with unions, as you seemed to imply, nor is it incompatible with a government that utilizes tax and spend to provide essential services for the public. It can be regulated markets and free trade, and most of the stuff we associate with Reagan's brand of neoliberalism are consequences of horrible tax and social spending policies, not necessarily a consequence of a lighter hand at protectionism. What's the real problem here, that we became more open to importing stuff or that the government abdicated its duty to do anything at all? (Aside from bombing brown people, of course.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The real problem here predates Carter and Reagan and goes back to the New Deal itself. The New Deal was the carrot, along with the stick of the Red Scare, to root out communists and other radicals in the labor movement. The promise was that the government would protect, or at least tolerate unions, so long as they proved their loyalty by engaging in anticommunist witch hunts, such as when communists were kicked out of the AFL/CIO. The effect that this had on unions was that they became weakened, narrowly self-interested, and complacent. Once the unions were broken, and the working class had no ability to wield power or fight back against whatever the government and ruling class decided to do, they could then take steps that would weaken them even further, and at the same time they could cut social programs, because nobody had any power to stop them. Something like a general strike was impossible, because after purging anyone who sounded like a communist, there was no solidarity, no greater vision, and no willingness to really fight, since those are all things that make you sound like a communist. Now, admittedly, from a global perspective, the Chinese people have benefited immensely from offshoring, so whether it's a good or bad thing overall is hard to say. But, good or bad, it's the reason why the US in such a shitty state today, why the government is able to cut social programs, why nobody can do shit to stop anything Trump does, etc. The most direct enemy of the American ruling class are, of course, American workers (and vice versa) so us getting fucked means that they are now able to operate with impunity with nobody to stop them. Regardless, what we need to do now, as a class, is to rebuild organization from the ground up, but this time refusing to punch left and purge radicals, and to instead actively promote solidarity, a greater vision, and a willingness to fight. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (4 children) Yeah imagine making an argument instead of using words you don't understand and expecting lemmings to go along with it because you've built an echo chamber of emotional association. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The real problem here predates Carter and Reagan and goes back to the New Deal itself. The New Deal was the carrot, along with the stick of the Red Scare, to root out communists and other radicals in the labor movement. The promise was that the government would protect, or at least tolerate unions, so long as they proved their loyalty by engaging in anticommunist witch hunts, such as when communists were kicked out of the AFL/CIO. The effect that this had on unions was that they became weakened, narrowly self-interested, and complacent. Once the unions were broken, and the working class had no ability to wield power or fight back against whatever the government and ruling class decided to do, they could then take steps that would weaken them even further, and at the same time they could cut social programs, because nobody had any power to stop them. Something like a general strike was impossible, because after purging anyone who sounded like a communist, there was no solidarity, no greater vision, and no willingness to really fight, since those are all things that make you sound like a communist. Now, admittedly, from a global perspective, the Chinese people have benefited immensely from offshoring, so whether it's a good or bad thing overall is hard to say. But, good or bad, it's the reason why the US in such a shitty state today, why the government is able to cut social programs, why nobody can do shit to stop anything Trump does, etc. The most direct enemy of the American ruling class are, of course, American workers (and vice versa) so us getting fucked means that they are now able to operate with impunity with nobody to stop them. Regardless, what we need to do now, as a class, is to rebuild organization from the ground up, but this time refusing to punch left and purge radicals, and to instead actively promote solidarity, a greater vision, and a willingness to fight. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (4 children) Yeah imagine making an argument instead of using words you don't understand and expecting lemmings to go along with it because you've built an echo chamber of emotional association. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (4 children) Yeah imagine making an argument instead of using words you don't understand and expecting lemmings to go along with it because you've built an echo chamber of emotional association. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children) I'd be happy to educate you. Those with knowledge (me) should share it with the ignorant. What would you like to know about? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago OK. I'll start with some basics. In a first past the post electoral system, most adults vote strategically because such systems inevitably devolve into two major choices, with all other choices being equivalent to nonparticipation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jve@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago Lmao, that's utterly delusional. Not that it would matter if it were true. Oh my sweet, sweet summer child. permalink fedilink source parent