Gambling, alcohol, nicotine, and prescription medicine should all be banned from advertising. Sponsorship should count as advertising and thus be banned too.
What else would you use to flavor pumpkin spice flavored food other than real pumpkin spice then? It’s not like powdered cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, and ginger are hard to come by…
I think “the more global warming accentuates, the bigger the Firefox and the smaller the globe” is the consistent rule. and when it’s just an orange circle with 0 fox elements, and no blue left, our time will be up as a species. Just fire will remain.
The only thing that keeps me going back to Reddit is extremely niche subreddits having no mass here. Honestly if the Nuzlocke subreddit had more activity, I’d probably never open Reddit
My family is always surprised that I don’t celebrate Thanksgiving (though I do like to eat). Maybe it has something to do with the fact that everyone is Christian, right-wing, straight and hateful - and vocal about it, while I am gay, satanic, soft-spoken and not right-wing. Maybe it’s because I see celebrating the day where we ‘gifted’ natives items that would knowingly harm and kill them, and even centuries later we’d still be trying to eradicate their people, freedoms, rights, history, land…
Nah, it’s definitely because I’m a godless heathen who likes gagging on guys. Most absolutely. More gravy with your confederate flag napkins, aunty? I’m so glad you brought enough for everyone.
(I might have my facts skewed but that’s what I took away from my history classes 20 years ago)
(I might have my facts skewed but that’s what I took away from my history classes 20 years ago)
I don’t think the typhoid blankets your referring to (at least that’s what I assume you meant by “gifts that would harm them”) were specifically given on the “first” thanksgiving, but you’re absolutely right that it happened. Even if the first thanksgiving was 100% as advertised (which it probably wasn’t) then it was a short-lived and tiny amount of human decency in what was otherwise a straight up genocide. Nevermind that the story was more about the natives helping the settlers than vice-versa, so really we’re just celebrating the time our victims were nice to us while we were still getting ramped up on eradicating their people
As a straight man and while I also don’t celebrate Thanksgiving, I don’t think your gayness should be a reason to not celebrate a holiday with straight people. Your gayness would be as welcome as my straightness on my table.
Edit: I honestly don’t understand why I am being down voted. Op expressed how they are straight and he is gay, as if that is the issue. It is not. It sounds to me as if they were bigots and pushy with their sexuality. They could be gay like him and they still could be bigots and making him uncomfortable with being too pushy with their sexuality. In other words, I tried to express that he should draw the line at sexuality but at bigots.
Moreso ‘awkward dinner table questioms’ and ‘quick glances to others’. I remember very vividly throughout my teen years that I wanted so desperately to reveal my orientation and (assuming everything went well) get reassurance and validation and yada yada. Every single time I was thinking about it, weighing the risks, someone would say some vile comment about a character on the show we had on, or a snarky question under the assumption that I shared their views, or whatever.
My parents are such a mixed bag; they can be really great caretakers, but fuck me if they can’t be the most dreadful, racist, and condescending people too. My extended family is that but even more.
I came out after a stroke at 21 that I wasn’t supposed to live through. When I did, it was in a therapy (physical, occupational, speech) setting. When my father asked me, “why [did you pick to tell us] here?”, my response was “because if you started to beat me, help is just down the hall [nurses, security]”.
It’s not the divide between who we like to sleep with, but the fact that my (extended) family has very… strong views, and it - along with my changing religious views, and other big factors - pushed me away from them, to solitude. Gatherings of people I don’t like, don’t trust, who think poorly on me because what I think when one passes, or what people and activities I want in my private spaces, enrage me deeply.
I’m glad that it’s not like that everywhere, but damn, I’m surrounded on all sides from where I stand. :(
I meant that one’s sexual shouldn’t be the issue. And 99% of the time it isn’t. It is ignorance and bigotry. Bigotry towards (usually) the homosexual person and the ignorance of the bigot how much they force their sexuality on others.
I’m really worried about the day my wife’s older Christian relatives find out my daughter is queer. The younger ones will probably be fine with it, but the older ones will pitch a fit.
To be honest, “The great thing about being Jewish is I don’t have to hate my daughter for being herself” would be so much fun to say. I know it wouldn’t end there though.
Yeah, it’s not even worth getting into it with them. They won’t change their minds. They’re stuck in their bigoted ways. My wife’s great-aunt came to us crying before our wedding because we didn’t accept Jesus into our hearts.
Yeah it’s never worth it. I have ultra religious family too and the mental gymnastics they do to defend their prejudice is baffling. I have so many shower arguments that will never see the light of day.
I just know her grandmother and her aunt will love her no matter what and those are the two important older people in that side of the family. The rest can fuck off and she won’t care.
Blankets with smallpox is a literally made up history fact that started in the 1940s because it sounded plausible. I used to need a pinned up selfpost on reddit for this fact lol.
There was 1. Literally 1… MAAAAAAYBE use of it being used as biological warfare at Fort Pitt… But even their own records people were like nah that shit’s stupid.
It’s about as stupid as when people started claiming the Blood is Thicker than Water quote wasn’t the full thing… then linking to Wikipedia who’s source was a literal Flatearther schizophrenic back2torah page lol.
Friendly reminder it’s never about consumer rights. It’s about who is in control of the data.
A question you can all ask yourself. Despite the warts in both who would you rather control your data (you have no choice here. Someone is controlling your data and it is not you)
A. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.
B. Government
You’ll get strong answers either way. Personally I’d rather the government strictly from an accountability perspective but that also warrants governments not electing shitheads which unfortunately the world is leaning towards with these populist right wing politicians gaining favour.
It can be you. It doesn’t have to be Big Corps or Government. It can be federated instances, it can be self-ownership of data, it can be E2E encrypted.
A, by a goddamn long shot. If google mistakenly thinks I’ve advocated for a crime against a massive corporation, they’ll remove my account and ban me from their services. If the government mistakenly thinks I’ve advocated for a crime against a massive corporation, they’ll arrest me and ruin my life. Microsoft doesn’t give a shit if you acquired the 1s and 0s that comprise a popular TV show without paying for them. The government will fine you more than the average person will make in their entire life.
It also depends on where you live. Facebook doesn’t care if you’re gay or trans, if anything that’s valuable monetizable data about you. Iran will straight up fucking kill you.
This one is completely about the people who pretend to “care about the children” but coincidentally also sell the software that does the proposed CSAM scanning. It’s a money making-scheme for them. Shit like this makes me lose the last bit of hope I have for democracy (really hard to not put this into quotes by this point … +__+).
The privacy tech is so robust and easily available right now that anyone could spend a few days and replace their everything with privacy focused alternative while still maintaining a solid experience.
During the campaign, conventional weapons such as explosives, incendiary bombs, and napalm destroyed nearly all of the country’s cities and towns, including an estimated 85% of its buildings.
A total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, were dropped on Korea. By comparison, the U.S. dropped 1.6 million tons in the European theater and 500,000 tons in the Pacific theater during all of World War II (including 160,000 on Japan). North Korea ranks alongside Cambodia (500,000 tons), Laos (2 million tons), and South Vietnam (4 million tons) as among the most heavily-bombed countries in history.
In an interview with U.S. Air Force historians in 1988, USAF General Curtis LeMay, who was also head of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, commented on efforts to win the war as a whole, including the strategic bombing campaign, saying “Right at the start of the war, unofficially, I slipped a message in “under the carpet” in the Pentagon that we ought to turn SAC lose with some incendiaries on some North Korean towns. The answer came back, under the carpet again, that there would be too many civilian casualties; we couldn’t do anything like that. We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another, and some in South Korea, too…Over a period of three years or so we killed off, what, 20 percent of the population of Korea, as direct casualties of war or from starvation and exposure? Over a period of three years, this seemed to be acceptable to everybody, but to kill a few people at the start right away, no, we can’t seem to stomach that.”
Sahr-Conway Lanz, who holds a Ph.D. in the history of American foreign relations, has written extensively about the legacy and impact on American discourse on the international norm of noncombatant immunity. He states:
“During the war, American military and civilian officials stretched the term “military target” to include virtually all human-made structures, capitalizing on the vague distinction between the military and civilian segments of an enemy society. They came to apply the logic of total war to the destruction of the civil infrastructure in North Korea. Because almost any building could serve a military purpose, even if a minor one, nearly the entire physical infrastructure behind enemy lines was deemed a military target and open to attack. This expansive definition, along with the optimism about sparing civilians that is reinforced, worked to obscure in American awareness the suffering of Korean civilians in which U.S. firebombing was contributing.”
The song was inspired by Korean war veteran that John McCrea met in a bar.
It’s a war, what do you expect to happen? Regardless, considering how North Korea turned out, defending South Korea, was without a doubt, the right decision.
Are you brain dead? Well, you’re a Marxist who defends North Korea, of course you are. After the Japanese Empire fell, Soviet Union and the US occupied the Korean peninsula. The Soviets took the North, and the Americans controlled the South. The idea was that after stability is restored, the two parts can unify and Korea can become an independent state. However, that never happened because of Soviet imperialism. Instead of pushing towards reunification like planned, they decided to keep provoking the South by funding a crazy dictator with a fuck ton of weapons. Then with the green light from Marxists in Moscow, Kim Il Sung, launched a surprise invasion of the south slaughtering tens of thousands of innocents. The North ravaged the South and almost took it over. The South Koreans were literally waiting for the Americans to arrive and assist the South Korean army, which was huddled around Busan, and help them liberate their lands from the Northern invaders. When the US came, they restored the status quo and helped South Korea get back on its feet.
Over time, the South turned into of the best countries in the world while the North became one of the worst. Especially after Marxism failed (yet again) and the Soviet Union collapsed. North Korea ended suffering through major famines (due to failed policies) and became even more authoritarian and closed off. The Korean war ended claiming the lives of up to 3 million civilians. While it’s sad what happened to the innocents, the alternative would’ve been much worse. The North Korean famine by itself killed 3.5 million North Koreans. The South had just as many people as the North back then. If they were under the control of the Marxist North, the same famine could’ve killed up to 7 million people. North Korea is still struggling with feeding its people while South Korea now has twice the population and a food surplus despite having worse geography. So fuck you, defending South Korea from Marxist imperialism was the right decision. You and your tankie vermin friends can cry your eyes out.
I’m sorry, but you’re deeply misinformed. I’m saying this not to start a fight, but in the hope that seeing it from someone outside hexbear (I’m banned from that instance!) will be received better.
What you’re saying is the us propaganda during and about the war after it ended. The consensus among even american historians stands in stark contrast to what youve posted.
I’m on mobile at the moment, so I can’t make the biggest post, but if you wanna know something in particular lmk and I’ll get to it as soon as I can.
What I said isn’t propaganda, it’s the reality. If you want to make the case that the war was brutal then I would agree. If you want to make the case that South Korea was ran by dictators until recently then I would also agree. These are also facts, but they’re irrelevant to the point that I was trying to make. The idiot I was replying to really pretended that Korean war was started by the US and not the Soviet backed invasion of the North which is simply not true. Whether you think the war was justified or not is subjective. Just like the nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, everybody has their moral opinions on it. In my view, the US involvement in Korea to help the South was the right decision. Even if South Korea didn’t democratize in the 1990s, they still would’ve been better off being sovereign then under the control of the North. The North after the war went through an economic collapse, a famine, and chronic food and supplies shortages that are still plaguing the country today. It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, but the it was ultimately the right call.
there’s a lot youre leaving out. I don’t think it’s on purpose, but one of the only ways that the korean war can be made to look like a soviet invasion is by conveniently leaving out everything that happened before the norths army crossed the 38th parallel.
korea was one nation and people before it was divided roughly along a line of latitude by two american officers with no input from those knowledgeable about korea or its history. one of those officers, dean rusk, has said that he would have done things differently if he knew that forty years before, the tsarist russians and japanese had discussed dividing korea along a very similar line.
They divided the peninsula because the idea among the allies was to reunify it five years or so after china’s civil war ended and it was clear weather koreas only land border would be with the communists or the koumintang.
as the japanese retreated south, the korean people formed their own governing committees. the soviet forces integrated those committees into the provisional government, the american side integrated the collaborators from the japanese occupation into theirs. the north had a democratic election, the south became a military dictatorship.
both sides claim to have held elections, but while a majority of the north wanted to vote for kim il sung, the fighter who was an ally of the liberators that empowered koreans to kick out collaborators and do land reform, the souths election that would put syngman rhee in power were boycotted by the souths political parties and accompanied by what was reported on in even western papers as brutal repression. it’s worth noting that one of the leaders of a prominent political party would be assassinated a little later.
there’s plenty i’m glossing over, but the north didn’t cross the 38th parallel out of the blue for no reason but to impose their evil communist brainwashing on the kindly people of the south. in the south, the repression of jeju island, the military uprising against the government in response to that repression and the bodo league massacre are the backdrop for the norths invasion.
now think about those circumstances and history for a second.
the americans divide your country along the same line the russians and occupiers wanted to use before. lets say youre in the north: maybe you don’t trust these soviets, but they respect the peoples committees and theyre doing that land reform youve been wanting for decades. they’re supportive of you expelling the japanese collaborators and things feel like they’re getting better. how about if youre in the south? the americans put the collaborators back in charge, broke up the peoples committees and are putting the ever growing number of collaborators to work beating everyone into shape for the election.
when 30,000 koreans die on jeju island, there’s a failed military uprising and a massacre of south korean communists, what would any right minded person do? of course the north crossed the made up line keeping them away from their countrymen in peril!
since i’ve written enough already i’ll just address what you said about the state of the north being so bad: when and why was it so bad? why did it take a carpet bombing campaign and international blockade to make it so bad?
“During the war, American military and civilian officials stretched the term “military target” to include virtually all human-made structures, capitalizing on the vague distinction between the military and civilian segments of an enemy society. They came to apply the logic of total war to the destruction of the civil infrastructure in North Korea. Because almost any building could serve a military purpose, even if a minor one, nearly the entire physical infrastructure behind enemy lines was deemed a military target and open to attack. This expansive definition, along with the optimism about sparing civilians that is reinforced, worked to obscure in American awareness the suffering of Korean civilians in which U.S. firebombing was contributing.”
One of the things I never understood is why Western countries (as we’re not the only ones who do this) bother coming up with these laws and rules of engagement and such if they’re just going to basically be interpreted in the most liberal sense to allow one to do whatever they want. Take that adviser to Trump who suggested sending out a drone to ‘deal’ with migrants before they crossed the US border or entered American waters because they wouldn’t be protected by the US constitution at that point. What even is the point of these laws if the intent is ignored and people simply find a way to play the system?
the mask of civility is the thin veneer that liberals use to hide their agenda
it’s related to the difference between materialist and idealist perspectives
if you claim to uphold lofty ideals, then you can just claim the material failure to live up to those ideals is an oversight, mistake, accident, victim-blame etc
this is also why plausible deniability is a critical aspect of many operations, it was those few bad people that caused the bad things, not the institutional structure that is dedicated to lofty ideals
@Hyggyldy that feeling gnawing at the back of your awareness is the realization that you’ve been duped by the most prolificly evil entity to ever exist on the planet
Won’t realize anything. When I showed this article to my liberal friend he doubled down and said that while civilian deaths were unfortunate, it was a proportional response to Kim invading the South and compared it to Hitler invading Poland. Its veryt rare that shit like this gets through.
Hey I too know a lib I can’t get through to; this guy however doesn’t know nearly enough about history to try and sound informed; he instead spouts whatever comes to mind, for example: when I told him about what had been going on in Donbas until the war, and that Ukraine wanted the land but not the people, he argued for ethnic cleansing in the form of forcing all the Russians there to leave, and it was enough that the Ukrainian government wanted them gone for him to say that. When I brought up that the US is causing major issues with Taiwan, his response was “Do you believe that China does bad things?”, and then wanted to start talking about the Uyghurs even though…it has literally no relation to the situation with Taiwan. He pretends that countries not being democracies is the reason he supports the US intervening or invading many nations, and when I point out that Ukraine has shut down many left wing parties, he then pivots and says Putin does it too with a face as though he’s said something really clever.
I’ve spent hours trying to educate him about what’s going on in many countries the US intervenes in but the truth is this guy just inherently supports US empire.
Your friend may be different, but I suspect he’s using what little historical info he has to try and lend legitimacy to his claims but the truth is he already knows who he supports (just not why).
North Korea isn’t Marxist. It stopped being Marxist after the Soviet Union fell. They officially adopted a new ideology, that’s more or less in line with what is traditionally considered Fascist. The North Korean regime is similar in function and ideology to other Fascist regimes like Belarus, Azerbaijan, or Turkmenistan.
Fascism doesn’t emphasize economics, it’s a minor point in the ideology. Most Fascist governments allowed a private sector to run, but they also nationalized any industry they wanted on a whim. There were also a lot of nonsensical regulations, but as long corporations didn’t question the state then they were fine. North Korea doesn’t really have a private sector or an economy, but again the focus of Fascism is mostly political and social. North Korea functions similarly to other Fascist regimes. North Korea is authoritarian, ultranationalist, ultra militaristic, it’s run by a dictatorial leader, it is centralized autocracy, the government does forcibly suppress opposition, the government does pump out propaganda telling its citizens that subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation is a must, and so on. It’s a Fascist state.
Fascism doesn’t emphasize economics, it’s a minor point in the ideology.
Their rhetoric maybe. I’ve studied fascism, in depth. Fascism absolutely is primarily class warfare waged by the petite bourgeoisie and precarious haut bourgeoisie and has common economic characteristics. A good primer on this would be “Economy and Class structure of German Fascism” It is a quick read, <200 pages.
North Korea is authoritarian, ultranationalist, ultra militaristic, it’s run by a dictatorial leader, it is centralized autocracy, the government does forcibly suppress opposition, the government does pump out propaganda telling its citizens that subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation is a must, and so on.
Are we just uncritically repeating the talking points of a country that killed 20 percent of Koreans in order to protect the puppet dictatorship riddled with former colonial Japanese oppressors they installed in the South? That claims the North invaded while their puppet dictatorship was busy slaughtering 10s of thousands of pro democracy protestors?
The DPRK literally has had workplace management elected by the workers since 1961 and you’re accusing them of being undemocratic. Imagine how different your life would be if you chose your own management, and there was no owner to leech off of you.
Fascism absolutely is primarily class warfare waged by the petite bourgeoisie and precarious haut bourgeoisie and has common economic characteristics
I think you’re missing the point. Fascism is neither capitalist or socialist. They just use whatever policies is convenient for the state at the time. If they deem a private sector is useful, they will allow a private sector. If they deem an industry is of national security, they will nationalize it. If they want to add or remove regulations on a whim, they will do so. There’s no economic vision, there’s no ideal economy that they work for. Class warfare is also used as a tool for power, it’s not a defining part of the ideology. Fascism believes in social hierarchies, and this was just another way to enforce this idea. While Fascism’s cousin ideology, Marxism, has class warfare as a definitive ideological enemy, this isn’t the case for Fascism. When we look at North Korea, the country used to be mostly Marxist while the Soviet Union was still around, but they switched over to Fascism quickly afterwards. It doesn’t seem like a lot changed because both ideologies are authoritarian, but Fascism is the more accurate term to describe how the country runs now.
Are we just uncritically repeating the talking points of a country that killed 20 percent of Koreans in order to protect the puppet dictatorship riddled with former colonial Japanese oppressors they installed in the South? That claims the North invaded while their puppet dictatorship was busy slaughtering 10s of thousands of pro democracy protestors?
And this is when you stop being a reasonable critic and start becoming a coping tankie clown. Just a few points here:
Everything that I said about how North Korea is unequivocally true and this is does not disprove or take away from that in any way, shape, or form.
America did not start the Korean war. The Korean war was officially started when the Soviet backed Marxist North launched a surprise invasion on the South on the 25th of June, 1950. This is basic history. Before that, most of the conflict was just political and there were a few minor clashes around the 39th parallel.
US helping the South defend itself from the North is beyond justified. It was the right call. On top of the North invading and slaughtering civilians in the South, the North also had other problems. After the war, both countries were relatively equal in population, size, and economy. However, there was one stark difference, North Korea was heavily dependent on the Soviet Union for its existence. They barely developed a plan B for when the Soviet Union cuts support. When that finally happened in the 1990s with the failure of Marxism in Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korea was left with nothing and ended having a famine that killed 3.5 million North Koreans. The entire Korean war killed an estimated 2-3 million civilians on both sides just to put things in perspective. Even if South Korea didn’t democratize in the 90s and remained under a dictatorship, they were still better off sovereign as that led them to escape the fate of the North. If the famine was spread to the South, the death toll could’ve been as high as 7 million. From that point on North Korea became a chronically malnourished, despite having the better geography.
North Korea was not and is not pro democracy, that’s some low tier propaganda which even the most ignorant of people don’t fall for. North Korea was a puppet propped by the Soviet Union, and the Soviets were very explicitly critical of democracy and saw it as a threat to their power, therefore North Korea was built with the same mindset.
The DPRK literally has had workplace management elected by the workers since 1961 and you’re accusing them of being undemocratic. Imagine how different your life would be if you chose your own management, and there was no owner to leech off of you.
What’s next, you’re going to tell me that Kim Jung Un, his father, and grandfather all got 100% of the vote 100% of the time in free and fair elections? Listen, I understand you’re a tankie and I commend your efforts to try and defend North Korea of all places, but this is not an argument you can win. North Korea is one of the world’s most authoritarian and undemocratic countries in the world, and anybody can tell that this is objectively the case based on the information that North Korea itself publishes. North Korea isn’t a communist utopia, it’s the polar opposite.
Please, share with me one nonfiction book or academic text you’ve read seriously analyzing fascism.
While Fascism’s cousin ideology, Marxism, has class warfare as a definitive ideological enemy, this isn’t the case for Fascism.
Bwahaha. If they’re cousins then fascism and bourgeois democracy are inbred twins. Facism exists to defend capitalism.
Everything that I said about how North Korea is unequivocally true and this is does not disprove or take away from that in any way, shape, or form.
Claiming your claims are true doesn’t make your claims true.
America did not start the Korean war. The Korean war was officially started when the Soviet backed Marxist North launched a surprise invasion on the South on the 25th of June, 1950. This is basic history. Before that, most of the conflict was just political and there were a few minor clashes around the 39th parallel.
To liberate the south, where the US had installed a far right puppet government which was slaughtering 10s of thousands of pro democracy protestors and generally repressing the population. Thats a war to liberate their country. Next you’ll tell me that the US Civil War was an unprovoked invasion by the North.
US helping the South defend itself from the North is beyond justified. It was the right call. On top of the North invading and slaughtering civilians in the South, the North also had other problems. After the war, both countries were relatively equal in population, size, and economy. However, there was one stark difference, North Korea was heavily dependent on the Soviet Union for its existence. They barely developed a plan B for when the Soviet Union cuts support. When that finally happened in the 1990s with the failure of Marxism in Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korea was left with nothing and ended having a famine that killed 3.5 million North Koreans. The entire Korean war killed an estimated 2-3 million civilians on both sides just to put things in perspective. Even if South Korea didn’t democratize in the 90s and remained under a dictatorship, they were still better off sovereign as that led them to escape the fate of the North. If the famine was spread to the South, the death toll could’ve been as high as 7 million. From that point on North Korea became a chronically malnourished, despite having the better geography.
The US literally mass murdered civilians and indiscriminately bombed civilian infrastructure. MacArthur had to have his nuclear command secretly taken away because the president thought he would nuke Korea.
The DPRK was literally doing better economically until the US massively subsidized the south in the 80s. You are right to criticize their uneven economic development though, though to be fair the sudden undemocratic dissolution of the USSR is only obvious in hindsight.
What’s next, you’re going to tell me that Kim Jung Un, his father, and grandfather all got 100% of the vote 100% of the time in free and fair elections?
You do understand that it isnt 100 percent, is is like 99 percent right? Which is reasonable in a country with process democracy where the final vote is confirmation that concensus has been reached.
Has it occurred to you that you’re uneducated on alternate forms of democracy, and you’ve been shown something that is more democratic outside of its context within other democratic mechanisms and told that it is proof theyre a dictatorship?
Also, each Kim has had less and less positions within the executive branch, and Kim jung Un wouldn’t have been elected if the guy before him didn’t try to do a coup to take the country in a far right direction.
What’s next, you’re going to tell me that Kim Jung Un, his father, and grandfather all got 100% of the vote 100% of the time in free and fair elections?
You’re literally claiming a campaign of genocide was justified because after the 80s the country it was in defense of stopped being an overt dictatorship, why should anyone value your analysis?
Fascism is when media tells me the country is evil bad country. What? Fascism has a definition and the DPRK doesn’t come even close to fitting it? Bah, impossible. Trustworthy Sources (social media echo chambers) told me that Kim is an evil bad dictator man.
Let’s see a statistics list of countries where America wasn’t able to reach via propaganda, or lost its status and most population thinks negatively of americans and their media:
Funny how the countries that are supposedly the ones who know the real truth about the world are the same ones that routinely lock up journalists for trying to report about the world.
You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, animal abuse will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become vegan, and take the compromise of continued meat production with strict punishment for animal abuse?
I advocate for widespread prolonged de-use and eventually abolition of animals as objects in societies that don’t need to.
What you’ve amounted to saying is “if the world can’t be 100% vegan, why try?”
Let’s try this then-
Me: “respect women”
Misogynist: “You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, misogyny will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become a feminist, and take the compromise of continued sexism with strict punishment for female abuse?”
Or this one’s good-
Me: “don’t be racist”
Racist: “You realize we don’t want to do that, and aren’t going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, racist will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won’t become a non-racist, and take the compromise of continued racism with strict punishment for lynching?”
If the feminist movement met up against people saying what you’re saying, what do you think their response would be?
And similarly, what would MLK say to you?
No, before you call out my comparison, I’m not comparing racism to sexism to animal abuse. I’m comparing the rhetoric used to defend the acts themselves. And it’s awfully similar.
In summation; I choose consistency in my morality, based on this: if the topic is different, but my rhetoric to justify is the same, check my biases.
People are just simply inconsistent with their justifications, mainly due to detachment from the reality.
I do not care to even read the main body of your argument.
Animals will continue to be eaten, and because of your distracting efforts it will continue to be in the most painful and depressing ways. Because you don’t support regulations.
But there’s a difference between animals and capital goods producing meat.
The only goal for a farmer is in the end how much money you can make. And yes healthy and happy animals taste better but people buy cheap shit so usually the welfare isn’t paid by people.
Well you don’t get stage four cancer, it’s not like you can develop “Ultra Instinct Cancer” or anything. You just let it go unnoticed and then when you find it it’s at S4.
In feudalism, you know full well you’re being exploited. In capitalism, you might not be aware of it, but you still are. The idea is that you’re being paid for your work but, if the pay is so little that it might as well not matter to the payer at all, and is hardly a living wage, then we’re essentially back at square one.
Granted, I don’t think we’re as close to the grain of outright slavery that feudalism was, but on a long enough timeline, we will be. Companies will want more and more profit, taking more and more from the consumers and working class. People will either fight back or… put up with it.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.