how do liberals not understand that we see them as every bit as genocidal, bloodthirsty, duplicitous and imperialist as Trump and the repubs? why do they keep calling themselves the "lesser evil"?
how do liberals not understand that we see them as every bit as genocidal, bloodthirsty, duplicitous and imperialist as Trump and the repubs? why do they keep calling themselves the "lesser evil"?
they keep talking as though we fundamentally want the same things but have different views on how to achieve it. no, i want the amerikkkan state and its allies wiped from the face of the earth and every one of its politicians, media cheerleaders, military brass, etc shot, even the ones who are ok with me being trans! i don't want a "lesser evil". i want the people to assert themselves on the world historical stage and drag you and everyone like you from your comfortable homes. you are the modern incarnation of the Nazis, you are actively carrying out the worst atrocity i have seen in my life, and yet you think you can convince me to do anything for you, let alone not actively work for your overthrow and execution???
why do they keep calling themselves the "lesser evil"
I love that this is an admission on their part that they are in fact, evil.
The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox.
- Malcolm X
I hate it when a pair of tiny men try to get me to do things when all I want is to dig holes with my shovel.
Tunnelgang
Tinyman Square, literally 1969
Malcolm FAX
A long time ago... back in the internet new atheist days, or whatever its called... I was watching YT videos of Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Community of Austin (last I heard the org was full of chuds... dont @ me) talking about getting into conversations, arguments, debates with Christians trying to "change his mind".
At some point he started responding to their rhetoric with a question, "What convinced YOU to be a Christian?"
The point of the question being, 99% of the arguments are purely rhetorical, they are not real arguments, they only exist to try to score points or back somebody into a "logical" corner where a person would have to admit that logically and rhetorically the Christian was correct.
The "less of two evils" argument is not a real argument. No lib who is talking, debating, arguing with you thinks they are the "lesser of two evils". They think they are correct and are trying to find some way to get you to admit that (1) you have no valid rhetorical counter point, (2) change your opinion and/or actions because you didn't have a valid rhetorical counter point, and (3) reinforce their own position/opinion by seeing that there was no valid rhetorical counter point to their arguments.
Yeah this is something a lot of people gotta understand. Debates are so people can either reinforce their own beliefs to themselves or look cool to people who already share their beliefs.
Debates are performances not communication
how do liberals not understand
Bread, circuses, "voting"... they understand, they don't care. They have their part to play in the "divide and conquer" strategy the ruling class has been using against the working class forever. Quite successfully for the most part.
Honestly it boils down to real estate, seeing that property value on their screen unfetters their minds and makes them think they're invincible
The idea that the order that sustains that imaginary number could collapse terrifies and infuriates them in equal measure, so they cope with racism
Liberals professionally don't understand things, it's what they do
libs are oblivious to a lot of things
they still try to use the "well biden has the best chance of beating trump" line
look, im not a gambler. i dont view voting as gambling, full stop. end of discussion on that talking point. it has no more sway over my vote than pointing out something like biden having thicker fingernails than trump. i vote for the candidate i think is best and presents the most moral path for social and political change. end of story.
and they will never understand this. i view voting for the candidate that is most likely to win as a doomed strategy for societal progress and when that candidate happens to be genocidal then this strategy is not just foolish, but fundamentally immoral. again, liberals are stuck in their thinking and just cannot grasp this much less internalize it
If you replace "liberals" with "communists", you get the question that most of us non-communists ask ourselves.
You call liberals bloodthirsty, then go on how you want america and all its allies wiped from the face of the earth, and execute anyone you consider a liberal.
- Communists didn't steal africans from their homes and ship them across the ocean.
- Communists didn't organize the white working class to go to war against slave rebellions.
- Communists didn't set the Americas on fire and put Native Americans in concentration camps from Nunavut to Tierra del Fuego.
- Communists didn't build railroads in Central America to extract resources from the impoverished, turning them into fruit pickers for American wealth.
- Communists didn't intentionally overextract from colonial India, causing millions to die from famine.
- Communists didn't draw the maps that turned west asia into a tinderbox of constant warfare.
- Communists didn't make the world dependent on the petrodollar and accelerate climate change.
- Communists didn't drop 7.6 million tons of bombs on Vietnam.
- Communists didn't train Suharto on the art of dictatorship at a military base in Kansas.
- Communists didn't take away Chile's right to self determination and sell its factories to American owners.
- Communists didn't obliterate North Korea until one of the most christian nations in the world didn't have a single church standing.
- Communists didn't hollow out Iraq for oil.
- Communists didn't sell that factory and move it to Bangladesh because the workers unionized.
- Communists don't run Blackrock.
- Communists are not landlords.
- Communists aren't on the board that owns your job.
Liberalism existed when all these things happened and what did it do besides feebly step aside for big business interests? At some point you have to realize the ideology is genocide all the way to its core. Liberalism IS Capitalism.
If you fear that communists are coming for you, then you need to ask yourself if your wages are worth it to sell the rest of humanity to the machine. The clock is ticking and climate change is not patient anymore.
Communists didn't obliterate North Korea until one of the most christian nations in the world didn't have a single church standing.
Wait, really? There were that many Christians in the DPRK before the US led genocide? I know the United States intentionally killed 20% of the population and bombed the second most industrialized country in East Asia until there were no buildings taller than one level; but I didn't realize missionaries were that successful.
Good post BTW
It genuinely kinda sucks how you drive-by libs never ever reply. You're not even getting the PPB treatment, and yet you still can't even be bothered responding to one of the many good-faith replies you get. And then libs yell about how hexbear bad.
EDIT: when a lib replies and it's "I don't think nazis should have been executed"
I try to reply when I get around to it, but I just can't afford to spend a lot more than half an hour per day on lemmy.
Also, I have been banned from lemmygrad/hexbear communities before for "debate me, debate me"-behaviour, so I'm not sure you are as interested in my opinion as you claim.
Moreover, mods on here tend to delete replies they don't like, so I don't really feel like putting too much time into my replies if they just end up getting removed. At the same time I don't want to give half-assed responses either, so I often end up not responding at all.
mm yes, i too like to deliberately swap the victims and the perpetrators. me smart.
Hmmmm it's almost like the consequential factor lies in the differences bewteen liberals and communists
I wonder what those crucial differences are
If you replace "Nazi" with "liberals", you get the question that most of us non-liberals ask ourselves.
You call Nazis bloodthirsty, then go on how you want Nazi Germany and all its allies wiped from the face of the earth, and execute anyone you consider a Nazi
If someone came up to you and spit this nonsense at you, would you take it seriously?
Gamergators: religious fundies and feminists are just as bad because they both want to take away my video game treats
Hexbear: liberals and what they label conservatives may be rhetorically different but ultimately they both protect the imperial core because they depend on it
Liberals: clearly the above two groups are exactly the same
You support the mass starvation of children, you support genocide
All we want is justice, no one made you support Genocide Joe
1a) I need your honest opinion: Was executing the (few) Nazi leaders post WWII justified? Yes/no will suffice.
1b) Is it justified to execute egregious offenders of human rights and those who participate in or actively create the conditions for atrocities like mass murders or genocides? For this question, assume the UN definitions are the standard used and assume the people in question are found guilty and all legal options are exhausted on their end to reverse the decision. Do you think it's justifiable to remove people like this from the world? Yes/no again will suffice
The reason those two questions are relevant is because humanity generally agrees that yes, people who commit such crimes should be removed. If that means super forever prison or execution, I'm not sure that part matters, they will be gone from society either way.
The problem with your thought process is you are assuming that the top leadership of the US/NATO powers/EU broadly/AU/NZ (the "West" going forward) aren't guilty of the same crimes for which the historical punishment was death/forever prison.
I don't know if this comes from ignorance (the most likely reason) or willful overlooking of facts. But the facts are, and they are facts, the West has perpetuated and is still perpetuating atrocities that add up to multiple Holocausts over the decades. If the German leaders deserved death for their crimes post-war, then what the fuck do American leaders deserve for actively fueling a genocide in Gaza?
The issue is you are seeking hypocrisy where there is none to be found on this issue. To compare criminals perpetrating crimes (the leaders, militaries, media cheerleaders) with justice being dealt to those perpetrators is flawed.
It would be "hypocrisy" if the statement from communists (just to continue using them since that was one of the original groups. Liberals and communists) was "we condemn liberals for their violence and bloodthirst. It is objectionable to kill a person for any reason including as retribution for crimes they committed." Or something along those lines. That isn't the statement nor can it be genuinely inferred on a broad basis.
In short, you are equating specific, deliberate justice (in the form of targeted executions after some form of trial. Think of Nuremberg if it helps) with the general tendency towards violence and the background of killing that these leaders allow, excuse, and actively perpetrate on a continual basis.
You have not discovered some underlying hypocrisy. You just refuse to acknowledge that liberals are doing the crimes ie they are bloodthirsty. And since I've seriously held back so far on personal accusations, I won't make one now, but I will say this requires the mindset of genocide denialism to even begin to believe that there is hypocrisy on display. It would require the exact same mindset as someone upset over Nazis leaders facing execution. Or perhaps Southern US slavers facing execution post-war. It requires refusing to accept that one side is doing egregious crimes while the other side is advocating for ending those crimes and dealing out legal punishments to perpetrators.
1a: no 1b: no
I believe that killing is wrong. I believe that the means are at least as important as the end.
I agree that criminals need to be held accountable, but I think we disagree how they should be held accountable, or who we even consider to be criminals in the first place. Does thinking that free markets are a valid basis for an economic system make someone a criminal? I don't think so.
If you said: "We should get rid of warmongering politicians and hold them responsible for what they do/did" I'd be on your side. But saying that any liberal should be executed is quite a bit different.
WHATABOUTISM
