sweetpotato @ sweetpotato @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

199

Joined

2 yr. ago

Wasn't expecting this under a random unrelated post. A very welcome comment nonetheless.

Never forget that the exponential boom of renewable energy tech the last 20 years has entirely served as additional energy, not as replacement of fossil fuels.

Questions include: how is your soldiers morale after this? Did those worthless Arabs dying traumatize you?

Which drowns refugees seeking asylum in the Mediterranean? That EU?

5? That's elderly dude. According to the beloved sky news 2 year old female Palestinians are ladies. They grow up so much faster

I really hate you people for spewing your propaganda like that.

1. The "worse" part implies the democrats didn't give Israel everything it ever wanted which is in itself outright propaganda.
2. I don't know why Ukraine is portrayed like Palestine. Where are they getting ethnically cleansed that I missed? Where is this coming from? Show some respect to the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century for the love of god
3. At how many atrocious policies do you say enough? At how many rollbacks from republicans that the democrats do nothing about do you say enough? At how many genocides do you say enough? If the democrats committed a second one? Trump would commit more you say. A third one? Trump would commit more. A fourth? A fifth? At what point do you draw the line?

https://medium.com/@ashwinjitsingh/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs-deontology-bd624a8e321e

"If one were to take a utilitarian standpoint, the means are justified by the end, which from a utilitarianist perspective, is the maximization of benefit. Hence, for a utilitarianist, whatever option guarantees the outcome of the maximum benefit is what is moral. Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.

The deontological perspective in contrast, advocates for the means justifying the end. This, for a deontologist, the morality of the action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than being based on the consequence. In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong."

Someone should make a phase diagram as well. With temperatures on the Y axis and percentage of being gay or straight on the X axis. Like we do fora alloys

Being born wealthy isn't really optional. It's actually necessary and a big reason why this system is so absolutely terrible, because the American dream is a capitalist myth to manipulate the masses.

The exceptions are not always exceptions, like the apartheid boy Elon and the 1 in a million that actually is an exception is drilled into our brains by the media like how gambling companies make ads about the people that win the lottery.

Because it's a far right party. Trump happens to be more far right, but that doesn't change that fact. I'm not voting for far right, neoliberal, genocidal freaks.

At how many genocides do you draw the line? If the democrats committed a second one along with the Palestinian genocide they are committing right now? You'd again say trump would be worse, vote for Harris. If they committed three? Four? No matter what they do, Trump would do worse, so again you'd tell us to vote for Harris.

I draw the line at a genocide and at everything this neoliberal party stands for. I am not giving that party my approval because it is going in the exact opposite direction of what I stand for. At some point, the lesser evil is too evil.

Bakunin had said that everyone would be obliged to do manual work under socialism(I think I read that in Statism and Anarchy, don't quote me on it, but it makes sense, someone has to do that, might as well all of us contribute), which is fair.

Also you can never get rid of logistics and factory related work imo, because concentrating the production means and scaling up factories is proven to be overwhelmingly more efficient in producing goods than producing them locally and independently. Producing flour in a big factory reduces the manual labour hours by tens and hundreds of times. So as I see it, these jobs will still be there.

The fundamental difference would be that people would actually work these jobs for like 2-3 hours every couple of days or so. This is because we have the capacity to cover everyone's needs several times over, that's how immensely huge our economy is. The west has to scale down a lot the economy cause we are producing way too much, that's how much we produce. We would be able to cover our needs with so much less work than now.

I genuinely don't understand how uranium can exist a priori in this argument but lead not? I might be missing something.

Here's your citation: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D Democrat Senators are funded more by the military than the republican ones, and that's only the above the table money. And before you say I'm cherry picking, I know I am. I'm not trying to argue that republicans are better, they are not. I'm just giving perspective on how little they differ.

I don't care if Stein is an oligarch, she very well could be(although personal wealth is not a

It's so funny that you think the democrats aren't the genocidal maniacs that have unconditionally supported and armed Israel. It doesn't get much worse than this, Israel has got literally everything it has asked for lmao. The problem is you thinking they are in any way holding back, but go off. As Joe said, no president has supported Israel as much as I did.

Tell us how not so evil the democrats, which are funded by the military industrial complex more than the republicans, are. Tell us how they work for our interests, not the oligarchs, please.

I've said this a million times, if the two candidates were Hitler and Hitler again, but he funded a little bit more the healthcare system who would you vote for? None is the answer. When the dilemma consists of ideologies and political/social trajectories that are 100% opposite to your ideal ones, the lesser evil doesn't exist.

Don't blame the dead on the people who have done more than the 99% for the cause, I can't take you seriously that way. You can blame the oligarchs and the fascists/liberals who don't care.

So dnc candidates are not puppets, got it. Also the comment was made taking the survey findings for granted, so no spoiler candidates for you people, but you didn't see that either.

I saw everything I needed when you moved right past the genocide part though, I don't expect someone like you to understand regardless.

I'm not voting for the "lesser evil" when the "lesser evil" commits a genocide. There is no dilemma when we are counting genocides. When do you start realising that both are serving the 1% interests? When does this end - if the dems commit 3 genocides and the republicans 4? If the dems commit 10 and the republicans 11? The red line is long crossed.

Don't tell us what to do lmfao.

Why? What's the excuse this time? You guys are too comfortable supporting genocide perpetrators

You don't spend millions on data analysts who gather voter data from social media, government data advertisers and other sources, you don't have photographers, videographers for every public appearance of yours, you don't have psychologists and communication specialists who decide what you'll say, do and express with your face. In general, you don't plan ahead every move you make when people will see you and you don't control your entire environment, the people you will interact with and what you will see and do every time.

You seem to have a really simplistic/naive view of how politics work at this level with the analogy of an ordinary person you gave. You need to realize that these people have absolutely nothing to do with you or me. These people will never tell you who they are funded by, who are lobbying them, who they owe to, who influences them, who threatens them and why they take most decisions, they will lie, they will hide their wealth, they will hide their ties. The only reason they are able to compete for presidency is the fact that the rich people support them, because their media take their side(channels, newspapers, websites) and their money fund their campaigns. So they will always, necessarily serve their interests, that's the deal, otherwise they will drop them and go to the next willing politician. This means that the big politicians can never tell the truth.

So with all that said, the fakeness of their campaign reflects the irreconcilable situation they are in, having to serve the 0.1% and having the people as a means to this end.

Everything they say, everything they do, every interaction with another person, every camera shot taken, everything is staged and planned ahead by teams. Their character is staged, their expressions are staged, so what's different? The fact that they may do something like that, though differently, once in a while? The goal is still the same, to connect with voters and to create a more likeable and relatable image of them. Regardless if other candidates have not explicitly dressed up as workers of a field they've never worked for. They film themselves going to factories listening to people, talking to people in the streets and all of that is 100% controlled, so I don't see the difference. It's not like anyone claims Trump works in McDonald's for years, they don't fabricate anything more than any other campaigner does.

The distinction you make doesn't have a tangible meaning to it, all of them are showing something staged based on data science, psychology and communication and nothing else.

You are right, I'm sorry for my aggressiveness. My point was that any big politician stages any public appearance and video they make, because they all have a very big team of communication experts who curate the best possible image for them. There is no authenticity ever and that's why so much money is spent on the campaigns. Staging a campaign is not a fascism issue, but a big politics issue

Jesus christ, can you people stop meatriding Harris for a millisecond? How do you make this about her?

Do you understand the meaning of the word staged? I was talking about the fact that any appearance of any (important) politician ever is controlled by a team of people specialized in communication. They want to obviously portray the politician in the best light possible, every impression counts. It's not a fascism thing, every politician constructs and curates their image to accomplish their goals and pass the messages they want to the people. Unless you think that these two rich politicians and the billions they get as campaign funding from other rich people are spent on pizza parties and that the videos and pictures they take are authentic lmfao

Staged? You mean that any other politician photo ever isn't staged?