Objection
@Objection@lemmy.ml
- Comment on The irony of arguing with someone who read about it in a history book vs. you having lived it 8 hours ago:
- Comment on Dog Love 10 hours ago:
Thinking about how there’s gotta be some dogfucker out there going, “Hell yeah I voted for this!” and how he probably has one of the most coherent and internally consistent reasons for voting Republican out of anyone who did.
- Comment on Dog Love 11 hours ago:
That’s Kristi Noem, a Republican who wrote in her autobiography about how she killed her dog after failing to train it and claimed it showed she was capable of doing “dirty, messy, and ugly” things in politics too.
- Comment on Was there ever a well-documented, widely accepted to be *false*, accusation of genocide? 1 day ago:
Of course. The Nazis accused Jews of committing genocide against white people. That’s why the 14 words are a thing, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” the implication that “the existence of our people” is under threat. It’s the same reason modern facists chant, “Jews will not replace us.” Nazis (not just the modern ones, but the OG ones) promoted conspiracy theories that Jews were trying to make white people become gay/trans to prevent them from reproducing, and communism was supposedly another Jewish plot to make white people too soft and tolerant to use force against Jews. And naturally, interracial marriages were another form of “genocide,” as they diluted the racial purity of of the Aryan race.
I have used the argument in the past, “If given all available evidence you’re still not sure a genocide is happening, you can probably safely assume that it is, because humans just constantly do genocide.”
That’s a bad argument regardless, because the default position on any claim or accusation should always be skepticism. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Some people seem to have gotten it into their heads that accusations of genocide are an exception to that, somehow.
Generally, historical genocides such as the Holocaust are incredibly well-documented, and the term “genocide denier” is meant to apply in such cases. There is nothing morally wrong with denying a genocide that doesn’t have the same kind of evidence backing it up, that’s just called due diligence.
- Comment on Yeah, fuck these two. 1 day ago:
black listed into oblivion
Meanwhile, the one who actually got blacklisted was Macklemore, while Ed Sheeran has a whole tour ahead of him.
If people don’t want to go to his tours because of his shitty behavior, tough shit.
- Comment on This is why Americans hate Socialism. 4 days ago:
You’re just nitpicking. You opened with “O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!” Now it’s just that I haven’t sufficiently proven my premise. We’re back to the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” where you’re rejecting the whole argument based on a sliver of a technicality. I’m not really interested in playing that game.
I’m established a clear and reasonable argument for why worker protections should be considered a necessary component of socialism. Your counterargument is that, just because workers have a clear means and motives to protect themselves, they might randomly decide not to. That’s hypothetically true, but only hypothetically. In practice, it’s pretty much always going to happen, and if it doesn’t happen, like I said, it’s a good reason to look very carefully about why it isn’t happening.
Also, for the record, the meme doesn’t even say that worker protections are a necessary component of socialism, only that socialism “protects the most vulnerable!” You literally said, multiple times including right here:
Obviously socialist movements have historically advocated worker protections
…that that’s correct! The only issue you have which it, that you’ve chosen to hyper-focus on, is that you’re claiming it’s not definitionally correct, but the meme never even claimed that it was part of the definition! Only that it was an ideology that did promote worker protections, which you just said is true! So on what basis was this reaction of “I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!” at all called for?
- Comment on This is why Americans hate Socialism. 4 days ago:
You still have to establish the premises and show that the conclusion follows from them. That’s exactly what I’m challenging.
If your position is that socialism necessarily entails worker protection, then demonstrate that from the definition or from the academic literature.
I’ve already explained this but I’ll spell it out very neatly and plainly for you:
Premise A: Socialism means worker control of the means of production (MoP).
Premise B: A class that has control of the MoP will use that power to advance their own interests.
Premise C: Worker protections are in the interests of the working class.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, in a socialist system, worker protections will be implemented.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, if a system does not have worker protections, workers are not in control of the MoP, and it is not a socialist system.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, worker protections are a necessary condition of socialism.
A system could theoretically have worker ownership while providing extremely poor working conditions, and it would still be socialist in the relevant economic sense.
This could only be true if either B or C are false. If one of those premises is wrong, then it’s you that needs to provide an argument or justification about why it is false.
- Comment on This is why Americans hate Socialism. 4 days ago:
to give that same government more power
No, absolutely not. Socialism has nothing to do with giving capitalist states more power.
- Comment on This is why Americans hate Socialism. 5 days ago:
Communism is the goal of socialism. The original democratic socialists, people like Eduard Bernstein, called it that because the idea was that communism could be achieved through gradually reforming existing political systems. It became more and more obvious that this was just a pretense, with things like the betrayal of the Second International and the demsoc support of WWI, and now we’re at a point where the pretense is often dropped entirely.
It’s been used to oppress millions of people.
Communism has never been used to oppress anyone because it’s never existed as a system (not counting primitive communism). There have only been socialist states that claim to be working towards communism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not called The Union of Soviet Communist Republics.
- Comment on This is why Americans hate Socialism. 5 days ago:
But there is an important distinction between saying something deserves investigation and saying that something has been proven.
There is also an important distinction between what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt (against the best lawyers money can buy), and what is likely to be true. There’s absolutely no reason why we have to hold all criticism to the former standard, and it’s completely unreasonable to do so.
It is not synonymous with social programs.
The fact that something benefits society does not make it socialism.
100% agreed, I never said anything remotely like that.
Socialism also isn’t simply a philosophy about “protecting workers.”
Agreed, however, protecting workers is a necessary (but not sufficient) quality of socialism. The goal of worker ownership is fundamentally driven by a desire to advance the interests of workers, which includes worker protection.
You can hard disagree with whatever you want it doesn’t make it any less true.
Yeah, it’s not the fact that I disagree, but the the arguments I made to support that disagreement that show your position is wrong.
- Comment on This is why Americans hate Socialism. 6 days ago:
You don’t need to invent a “parasitic pedophile class” or some grand conspiracy to make that argument.
How on earth is it a “grand conspiracy” to label the class known for extracting wealth from workers to fund child sex parties ‘the parasitic pedophile class?’ That’s just a straightforward description of the group of people who in practice have concentrations of wealth.
I genuinely don’t even know what part of this is supposed to be conspiratorial. Are they not parasitic? Are they not pedophiles? Are they not a class?
You can absolutely argue that collective economic power would provide greater protection for vulnerable people. But that’s an argument for socialism. It isn’t the original definition or purpose of socialism.
Hard disagree. Workers are vulnerable people, who, without organization, are taken advantage of by the ruling class. “What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? But the union makes us strong!” And vulnerable people are workers, many of them anyway. Socialism is not and never has been just about some stereotypical image of an able-bodied white guy in a hardhat and fuck everybody else. In order to achieve working class solidarity, especially on an international scale it is absolutely 100% necessary to overcome barriers such as race, gender etc, which means supporting and accommodating all sorts of vulnerable people.
- Comment on How are you going to never forget 9/11 this year? What are you never forgetful for? 1 week ago:
I will never forget how Osama bin Laden went on to host a game show
- Comment on How are you going to never forget 9/11 this year? What are you never forgetful for? 1 week ago:
What’s the difference between a cow and 9/11? You can’t milk a cow for 25 years.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 2 weeks ago:
Look, is it a pyramid scheme? Sure, maybe. But trying to pick the right religion to get into heaven, and even then there’s no guarantee, that’s like playing the lottery. You’re better off signing up now and getting a better spot in the pyramid.
- Comment on Nice Going Buddy 2 weeks ago:
Jokes on you, my plan all along was to tempt you away from God to secure a better position in Hell, as is the secret motivation of all atheists. Muahahaha!
- Comment on Disgusted 2 weeks ago:
There’s a pretty significant difference between blocking the free movement of people between two polities and the question of which polity controls an area. And I say that even as someone who doesn’t care about the second one unless I have a good reason to (beyond just it being a border).
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
You don’t understand how sources work. Let me break this down for you.
That troops are imperialist killers-for-hire is my conclusion drawn from historical facts. Those historical facts include that they went abroad to occupy a country for decades in a war of aggression that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
If you’re disputing those facts, tell me what you’re disputing and I will happily supply a source for it. If you agree with those facts, then no source is needed. If you agree with those facts but still disagree with my conclusions, then you must disagree with my logic and reasoning, which doesn’t need a source.
If you don’t understand my reasoning, then I’m happy to explain it, but I think it’s pretty straightforward. They are hired to kill people, so they are killers-for-hire.
If you understand my reasoning but still disagree with my conclusion, then you can challenge some specific part of said reasoning.
That is how reasoning and debate works. You don’t just point wildly at whatever someone says and demand a source. If you’re asking for a source, it means that you disagree with some specific fact underlying the chain of reasoning.
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
If you want me to link you a source on a claim, tell me what specific claim. Otherwise I have no idea what information you’re looking for.
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
What do you think the guns are for, exactly?
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
You need a source for the claim that murder is wrong?
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
Links for what info? Do you need a source for the fact that there was decades-long occupation of Afghanistan? Have you been living under a rock?
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
Murderers deserve punishment. What more is there to explain?
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
You don’t think some members may have joined before this administration and got trapped doing this kind of shit?
What, when we were occupying Afghanistan for 20 years and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians? What on earth makes you think I only hate them because of who the president is?
Its not like you can just quit, you usually do jail time.
Tough shit. A person threatening you with jail time does not justify committing murder.
And if they have a family, are they supposed to just abandon them?
Even if they have to, they’d be no worse off than the families of the people they kill. Although, I suppose they often kill the families too, so kind of a bad example.
Help me understand why it’s their fault they were told to do stupid shit with very little recourse.
This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but human beings have agency which means that if someone tells you to do something, you don’t actually have to do it, because you are not a robot.
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
Because they’re imperialist killers for hire?
- Comment on Food served to US service men & women. 2 weeks ago:
Lots of people arguing about this in the comments, but I’m glad there’s so many people defending the position that it’s ok to do bad things if you’re poor, because that’s exactly my position. I wasn’t in the military, though, no.
I was the guy that trafficked kids to Epstein’s Island.
I don’t talk about it a lot because most of the time people judge me pretty harshly for it. You wouldn’t believe how many dates have walked out on me the moment I drop what I used to do for a living. I mean, look, I’m not a pedophile myself. Most of the guys I was working for were just desperate and in if for the money. I don’t support what the guys in Washington decided to pay me for. Blame them, not me.
What was I supposed to do, work in a warehouse or a grocery store or something? What am I, some kind of chump? Fuck that. With the money I made duct taping children’s mouths shut and throwing them into my trunk, I managed to earn enough money to put myself through college, and finally persue my real passion.
That’s right. Now I’m finally able to persue a dual major in Moral Philosophy and Women’s Studies. Also, funny coincidence, I’m a TA and I’m actually teaching one of the girls I met in my previous line of work about feminism. What a funny little coincidence!
- Comment on somebody has a case of the Mondays 2 weeks ago:
This meme predates slop.
- Comment on What is the best and worst USA state to live in? And why? 2 weeks ago:
It’s still cheaper than other major cities. You can compare the rent data on various sites, NYC is 50% higher or more, other major cities like Seattle, Los Angles, Boston, they’re all like 25% higher or more.
- Comment on What is the best and worst USA state to live in? And why? 2 weeks ago:
Chicago is far more affordable than any of the major coastal cities.
