Nine times out of ten, it’s not that anyone is scared of the LGBT community. We just recognize the negative impacts their activism is having on society (especially kids) and we get sick of having a completely contrary worldview shoved down our throats.
Well grease up that throat twinkle toes, because a lot of your kids are fucking gay as hell, because that shits in the DNA, not in how ignorant and homophobic your dumbass parents are. Good luck!
Weird, religion has been shoved down my throat and I’m not religious. You do realize you can’t make someone gay right? Just like you can’t make someone gay straight. How many hours per day do you watch fox “news”, be honest.
So what you’re saying is you’re scared of the supposed negative impacts on society. The negative impact being less people are depressed and less people kill themselves as they can openly be who they are without someone shoving their heteronormative worldview based on misinformation down their throats. Interesting stance to take
Nope, just sick of y’all pushing it on everyone, insisting we agree with your worldview, and making up goofy terms like “heteronormative” to make it sound philosophical.
Oh no, looks like I ruffled the feathers of a mod. This crap right here is exactly why I despise Reddit and it seems Lemmy ain’t any better. Every day, I grow more convinced that I might just need to ditch Lemmy entirely.
Points for consideration, there were a handful of ships full of Jews during WW2 seeking asylum. It's widely believed that world leaders knew of or suspected that the Holocaust was murdering Jews around the time those boats were rejected for asylum.
Additionally, even after people knew the details of the Holocaust people still didn't really like Jews.
how would you account for those points?
also thank you for engaging with me on this. I'm genuinely enjoying our conversation!
Everything you’re saying really just supports the fact that the nations of the time were handling the situation in a wildly immoral way, and the creation of Israel as an ethnostate was part and parcel of that immorality, and remains highly consequential to this date.
There’s no point asking me as an individual how I would personally have solved the crisis if I could travel back in time, because one person can’t unilaterally force a nation to do anything without being a dictator, and people don’t become dictators without doing horrible things.
What matters is recognizing that the Israel of today came to exist out of two factors:
Wealthy and influential Zionists wanted to claim Palestinian land by any means possible to further enrich themselves.
Other nations wanted somewhere to send as many Jewish people as possible because they were antisemitic and didn’t like refugees.
Now we’re stuck dealing with the consequences of our idiot racist ancestors. Let’s just try our best to not be overtly idiotic or racist ourselves (racist, for example, by turning a blind eye to the genocide happening to Palestinians, as if they’re not even human beings, or idiotic by thinking that there’s any justification for Israel’s insanely disproportionate use of force).
Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you specifically of being racist or idiotic, I’m just describing my general position on things.
It won't solve the problems of today but sometimes it can be interesting to see what people of today think for problems and crisises of yesterday. I was in model UN and that was a fairly frequent conference idea.
I also enjoy talking to people because it's easy for us to say "that's a colonialist action" and even though it's true the question becomes (for me) 'alright how could we have done better' and discussing that thought experiment
and I appreciate the call-out, I definitely didn't assume you were calling me one.
Maybe for a better question we ask "what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman." While they were singular people they did give the diplomats their marching orders when it came to the peace resolutions.
“what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman.”
These people were influential but did not have unilateral power. In their position I would have tried to establish refuge for Jewish people and grant them protective status. Then because of how racist and dumb society was, I would have lost my political position and my influence.
Mmm that's a pretty fair point. Even back then being the President that ended a war only got you so much political good will in the States. Not sure how it worked for Churchill.
I kinda wonder what if any good solutions there were for this. Doing the moral thing but losing your job doing it and potentially seeing the work you did undone by your successor would suck hella bad.
Well thank you for indulging my questions this has been really fun chatting with you!
Churchill lost re-election because he made a really tone-deaf radio address on Labour’s plans for socialized medicine, national insurance, and nationalisation of utilities and critical industries (all of which the overwhelming majority of the country wanted), basically calling them communism, said it would require a “gestapo” to implement, and he wouldn’t stand for it.
Clement Atlee more or less thanked him for that speech the next day, and assumed the Prime Minister role after the Tories were absolutely trounced in the 1945 election.
Atlee lasted 6 years. Labour ran the show with a huge majority for a full five year term, then got an unworkably small majority of 5 seats in 1950. Snap election was called in 1951, and Conservatives retook the majority, despite Labour getting 48.8% of the vote, and Conservatives only getting 48.0%.
…Funny how that keeps happening.
Churchill resumed the role of Prime Minister until he retired in 1955.
It wasn’t (maybe still isn’t?) a strictly proportional representation system, so the urban areas get slightly fewer members per vote. More equal than the Electoral College, but still imbalanced in favor of the rural areas where wealthy people have huge estates that have been handed down for generations.
You would need a crazy low probability of a lunatic or a mass murderer being down the line to justify not to kill one person
Edit: Sum(2^n (1-p)^(n-1) p) ~ Sum(2^n p) for p small. So you’d need a p= (2×2^32 -2) ~ 1/(8 billion) chance of catching a psycho for expected values to be equal. I.e. there is only a single person tops who would decide to kill all on earth.
You don’t even need a lunatic or mass murderer. As you say, the logical choice is to kill one person. For the next person, the logical choice is to kill two people, and so on.
It does create the funny paradox where, up to a certain point, a rational utilitarian would choose to kill and a rational mass murderer trying to maximise deaths would choose to double it.
Unless someone decide to hit kill. In that case, it’s them doing it. I’m invalidating the argument that pre-empting imaginary future mass murders justifies killing one person today.
Idk which moral system you operate under, but I’m concerned with minimising human suffering. That implies hitting kill because chances of a mass murderer are too high not to. You also don’t follow traffic laws to a t, but exercise caution because you don’t really care whose fault it ends up being, you want to avoid bad outcomes (in this case the extinction of humankind).
Oh sure, there’s definitely lots of valid criticism of rainbow capitalism, but to be clear, it’s not pride month itself that’s the issue there - it’s corporations leveraging it for profit
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.