Objection
@Objection@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
Yeah, I know what you were referring to. That’s not a “lecture.”
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
they begin to seriously lecture me about how there is no evidence that cookies make people explode
No one “seriously lectured you” on that.
I’m going to assume there is something mentally wrong with them.
You assume everyone who disagre with you (and many who do agree with you) has something mentally wrong with them. It’s a common symptom of people who think they’re smarter than they actually are.
It’s like a Twilight Zone episode.
Hmm, I’m not sure what that would look like. “In a world… where someone criticizes people for getting vaccinated… people treat that person as being anti-vaccine.” Not exactly a twist.
Dang. I feel like I’m in an I Think You Should leave skit.
Lol, yes, you do seem like someone from an I Think You Should Leave skit.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
They do. Most people are not as irrational and simple as you are
You keep insisting this but it’s not true. No one except you and the bots are getting confused about this.
Lmao! Yes, I suppose if you simply label all the people who interpret your comment a certain way as “bots” then you can say that anything means anything!
Yes. It is. If you pretend to be a Nazi and spread Nazi propaganda, you are a Nazi. That’s what Mother Night is all about.
Either you misunderstand, or you’re pretending to misunderstand.
If I go around talking shit about people who accept the consensus view on the Holocaust, if I call them all sheep who just believe whatever they’re told, and then I say that actually I accept the consensus view, but it’s because I’m rational and researched it myself, I do not get to hide behind that last part to excuse the first part. If I pretend I didn’t rob a bank, that doesn’t make me not a bank robber. You’re trying to twist Voggnaut’s message around to justify dishonesty.
Again, I’m caught between the two possibilities. Either you’re a pretentious narcissist who thinks you’re way smarter than you actually are (and everybody else) and are quoting Voggunaut to sound smart, or you’re deliberately trolling and throwing that out to muddle the facts.
I’m not doing that. That’s all in your head, pal.
Oh really! So the part where you had that whole rant about “Regulations are written in blood,” that was all in my head, was it? The parts where you’ve repeatedly attacked “political hobbyists” for getting the vaccine, those were also all in my head? The parts where you’ve called me “psychotic” and a “lunatic” for being pro-vaccine, again, all in my head?
Fuck right the hell off with your trolling and your attempts to spread doubt.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
I’m not though because the vast majority of people are not political hobbyists and they, like me, did not get the vaccine because it was fashionable. They got it because it was reasonable
That was absolutely not the impression anyone would get from reading your initial comment.
Even if I’m pretending to encourage people to get vaccinated, it is still encouraging people to get vaccinated. You are who you pretend to be.
Lol that’s not how that works. You’re actively sowing confusion and doubt and attacking people for being pro-vaccine, and then you defend this behavior by saying you’re actually pro-vaccine. I don’t mind the part where you say you’re pro-vaccine. I mind the other part.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
Oh come on, you have to be less obvious when you troll!
Yes, I’m sure bashing everyone else who got the vaccine as a brainwashed hypocrite who’s just following trends is the way to encourage more people to get the vaccine. Yes, what a “rational” response to assert that you’re the only person who got it for rational reasons and that everyone else is an idiot.
Come on, you know as well as I do that none of your comments from the very beginning have been about encouraging anyone to get vaccinated. At best it’s about trying to feel superior to everyone. At worst it’s trying to pick a fight and spread confusion and doubt.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
And you’re calling me a lunatic on the basis that I’m pro-vaccine, the position that you claim to hold.
You’re just a troll trying to stir up drama. That’s all you are, 100%.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
See, you’re doing it again right now. You’re playing this game of criticizing people for getting the vaccine, attacking motives, while giving yourself plausible deniability by saying that you got it because it was rational.
How do you know that I and other people did not also get it because it was rational? Why do you even care why people got it? If it’s the rational choice, you should be glad that it was “fashionable.”
I guess this does open up another possible interpretation, which is that you’re a narcissist who just assumes everyone else is stupid even when they’re making the same decision as you and feel this need to present yourself as better than everyone else. I’m not sure whether that’s better or worse than simply trolling. You’re a complete, absolute dickhead who’s poisoning the well either way.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
I wish I was a bot so I wouldn’t have to worry about the diseases you’re gonna spread with your idiotic troll shit.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
But it surprised me that the crowd that are terrified of Forever Chemcalz, atomz, BPA, microplastics and frequently scream “Regulations are written in blood!” were chomping at the bit to force everyone to get injected with a product from Big Pharma that was fast tracked and bypassed all normal regulations to get to market as soon as possible by the executive orders of a billionaire president they despised.
That sounds a hell of a lot like criticizing pro-vaccine people as hypocrites because we’re supposedly the same group that scream “Regulations are written in blood.”
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
I made a joke about the possibility that vaccines could cause people to explode and they’re taking it at face value.
Nobody took it at face value, you lying troll.
bots bots bots bots bots bots bots
The fact that we don’t put up with your troll shit doesn’t make us bots.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
The way you troll is by saying more people should be antivax and then explaining (once pressed) that you’re actually pro-vaccine and just want them to be internally consistent with principles they don’t actually hold.
You’re not being clever with this shit, you’re just helping to poison the well.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
So you can’t name a single notable figure.
“Google it” is that the standard now? All that shows it that some random people on the internet say it. It doesn’t prove that those people are the same ones who support regulations regarding vaccines. It also doesn’t show that it represents any real meaningful movement.
It’s be like if I said, “Why do so many people scream ‘taxation is theft’ and then support burglery?” and when someone asks, “Do they support burglery? Who?” I respond, “Just Google it and you’ll see lots of people saying that phrase.”
You’re just a troll. And one of the worst kinds of trolls, someone who trolls about vaccines. Your stupid little games get people killed.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
For me, if evidence pops up years down the road that it has a statistically increased chance of causing cancer or whatever, it’s no big deal
So you’re just a troll. “Why don’t more people adopt an unreasonable position?”
There were/are plenty of antivax hippie types. You seem to be trying to lump everyone on the left as being on the same page as them. Who are all these people screaming “regulations are written in blood,” at you? I’ve never heard the phrase in my life. Apparently this represents so broad cultural movement? Can you name some notable public figures who oppose all regulations except when it comes to vaccines?
Or are you just pulling all of this out of your ass to troll?
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
Bruh I’ve hated you pro-disease morons long before AI existed. I don’t care if “everyone agrees with me” except on topics where you’re causing children to die of preventable disease for no fucking reason.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
Jesus Christ, the Nurglites have come out of the woodwork in this thread.
- Comment on Human experimentation, one way or the other. 2 days ago:
This comment was written by a virus.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 4 days ago:
Either you’re just ignorant and doubling down to try to cover for that, or you have an incredibly low standard for what counts as “violent revolution” to the point that there’s no reason to listen to anything you say, because evidently voting for a peaceful leader is a “violent revolution.”
Not sure who you’re trying to fool, or if you’re just utterly delusional.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
“Violent revolutions” like when Mossadegh was democratically elected? Or Jacobo Árbenz, again, being democratically elected?
You are making my point for me. Westerners are so ignorant of the histories of these countries that it doesn’t matter how peaceful they are. You’ll just assume that they’re violent based on nothing. How are you supposed to win public support when the public doesn’t know you exist, and doesn’t care if you live or die?
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
I have no idea how showing a bunch of peaceful movements that got slaughtered “makes your point for you.”
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
Just so long as you arbitrarily exclude Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, and the many, many other cases where the CIA overthrew peaceful, democratically elected leaders who went against their economic interests, while also blaming countries for things outside of their control, and refusing to consider changes in quality of life and insist that every former colony be compared to the nations that stole/are stealing their wealth and resources.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
And again, if you want to argue that’s true in certain situations, then knock yourself out. Don’t try to propose it as some universal law or dismiss objective quality of life improvements in other countries.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
they did it because they collapsed under their own incompetence.
Huh, and here I thought they did it because peaceful protests were just so darn effective.
And if Cuba is the standard you have for quality of life, I feel sorry for you.
First off, Cuba’s quality of life is greatly impacted by the US embargo. Secondly, even with the embargo Cuba’s quality of life greatly improved compared to what it had before. If the standard you have for quality of life is the Batista gangster state, I feel sorry for you.
Funny how you chauvanists always try to compare the quality of life in former colonies to that of the imperial core as if it’s some kind of point in your favor. If you do an actually fair comparison by looking at what came before, Castro was a massive improvement over Batista, the PRC was a massive improvement over the ROC, and the USSR was a massive improvement over the tsar.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
It’s funny to me how most of your examples involved the USSR peacefully ceding power. If you’re up against someone with a conscience, sure.
I don’t deny that peaceful movements can be effective (especially when backed with an implicit threat of force). I do deny that they are consistently effective, as proven by Mossadegh and countless similar stories around the world. From The Jakarta Method:
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: Who was right?
In Guatemala, was it Arbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the d’etente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
Peaceful movements that challenge Western economic interests in regions remote enough for the Western public to not care get massacred. Meanwhile, violent revolutions have provided massive increases in quality of life in many countries, including China, Vietnam, and Cuba. If you want to argue that peaceful methods are more likely to be successful within the imperial core that’s one thing, but if you want to lay it down as though it’s some universal law that violence never works, I’m going to call that out as absurd.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
The new regime faced extreme economic isolation and was forced to pay massive reparations to France, which crippled its development for generations.
“Faced” “was forced to” why the passive language? Yes, France indefensibly forced Haiti to pay reparations for Haitians “stealing their property” (freeing themselves from slavery), a debt which it still, unbelievably, upholds.
I’m not sure how it’s discrediting for a revolution to be crushed by an overwhelmingly powerful outside source. It kinda seems like you’re just trying to intimidate people into falling in line at that point.
Of course, we should also look at what happens to peaceful reformers who achieve some degree of success at decolonization. Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, for example, is the perfect example of the approach people like you advocate. Peaceful, democratically elected, didn’t crackdown on anyone’s rights. Guess what happened? He faced, as you put it, “economic isolation” as the British blockaded them in retaliation for exerting control over his own country’s oil. Then he was overthrown by the CIA. Shit like that is exactly why anybody with any sense who gets in a position like that does the sort of thing that makes you denounce them as “totalitarian.”
Convenient, isn’t it? The peaceful people who oppose colonialism get quietly deposed or exterminated, while the violent ones get condemned and economically isolated. Almost as if you don’t want anything to change at all.
Result: Communist State: The creation of the Soviet Union (USSR). A single-party, totalitarian state that was characterized by extreme political repression and state-controlled social life.
Result: Socialist Republic: Cuba transitioned into a one-party totalitarian Marxist-Leninist state ruled by the Castro family for 60 years.
Both of which were clearly and unambiguously better than the states that preceded them.
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
Are you blaming the deaths from Imperial Japan’s invasion and genocide on China?
- Comment on fighting evil by moonlight 5 days ago:
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 5 days ago:
Is your argument that Americans got to genocide natives so that makes it ok for Israelis to?
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 5 days ago:
Or they could shoot more rockets into Israel.
Zionazis are so far up their own asses that literally the only way that they could ever be brought back to reality is by stomping them into the dirt. They need to face complete, unconditional surrender just like other genocidal, fascist states like Germany and Japan in WWII.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 5 days ago:
Two Palestines seems like a bit much, but if you insist…
- Comment on What the fuck is going on with Iran and what will happen next? 1 week ago:
The Japanese fascists didn’t give a shit about the people getting nuked. If they did they would have started the war in the first place. The most the nukes gave them was an excuse, they could pretend that’s why they surrendered to make themselves look better. The only thing they cared about was their own skin. The reason they didn’t want to submit to unconditional surrender was because they didn’t want to hang.
The desperate hope that they had been hanging on to was that they could negotiate with the USSR to mediate the surrender (in fact, the USSR was just buying time as they moved troops to attack). This hope was prolonged because Truman pulled out of a joint statement with the USSR calling for surrender, and the reason he did that was because he wanted an opportunity to use the bomb.
The USSR declaring war is the thing that removed the last hope the Japanese fascists had for a conditional surrender. They were then allowed to save face by claiming they cared so much about sparing the people from nukes. Because really the only reason the US was so insistant on unconditional surrender in the first place was because it would sound more badass in the papers and help Truman get reelected. Dropping the nukes also served as a way to justify the costs of the program, and to intimidate the Soviets.
The projections for a possible invasion were all invented after the war as a talking point. No such projection existed during the war, nor was any invasion planned.
