Objection

joined 1 year ago
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 52 minutes ago (1 children)

As opposed to Biden merely calling their decisions "outrageous" and strongly condemning them while supporting Netanyahu after they issued a warrant for his arrest.

I'm not sure how that's connected to Syria, tbh.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago (3 children)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

Pretty much every country was a member.

"Every country was responsible for the invasion of Korea because everyone was in the UN."

"Finland has no influence over the UN because we're not on the security council."

Choose one.

“Don’t start wars” is a lesson we’ll hardly need opportunities to learn about, no matter how many there are people are still going to start them again and again.

"Don't start wars" is not the only lesson to learn, also, "Avoid getting involved in wars unless you have a very good reason, even if you didn't start it."

 
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Not members of the Securit Council though who made the decision or the United Nations Command

Which returns to my previous point that "the UN" at the time was essentially just the US, the UK (whose support was bought with the coup in Iran), and France (who got US support in Vietnam in exchange).

But it also happened before I was born, so my possibilities on affecting the outcome are pretty limited.

Then why are we even talking about it? Because it provides an opportunity to learn from mistakes and avoid repeating them.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

Well, your country is part of the UN and as you've emphasized it was a UN intervention so I'd say it's pretty clear which side of the war you have a greater ability to influence and therefore a greater responsibility to critique.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

In that case I return to my original statement. "Damn, maybe we should stop doing them then." I don't have any control over what North Korea does or did, but I do, at least theoretically, have influence as a voter and a citizen over what the US does, so I'm going to focus on the things within my ability to influence. And your response that "North Korea started the war" seems largely irrelevant.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 hours ago

The root problem of Trumpism isn't going anywhere, these people were largely "like that" before Trump and they'll be like that after Trump.

At best, we may find that the right is directionless after Trump, unable to unify behind a single face. There are other right-wing figures just as bad or worse than Trump, but many of them are ideologues who don't have the same kind of broad appeal. But this will only be a temporary setback. Even if the Democrats win, we'll just get more neoliberalism, and we'll get a situation like with Kier Stamer in the UK, where people got sick of the Tory clownshow enough to give Labour a chance, but then one of the first things Labour did was to cut Winter fuel subsidies and their popularity plummeted. Democrats likewise can always be relied on to drop the ball and alienate the working class.

There may not even be an offramp on the path towards fascism at this point but if there is it involves the left putting forward a bold vision that offers a plausible alternative to both neoliberalism and fascism. Otherwise, if the choice is between neoliberalism and fascism, then it's only a question of how long it takes for neoliberalism to decline to the point that people will gamble on fascism, which is what brought us here in the first place.

Don't treat Trump as some sort of anomaly or fluke, don't think that the US will stop being Trumpian once Trump is no longer president.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 24 points 8 hours ago

How marketable would you say your illness was?

Your options would be: begging strangers on the internet for money and going viral, being rich enough to pay out the ass for really good insurance when you were healthy, declaring bankruptcy, and playing Luigi's Mansion.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (8 children)

Can I just get a straight answer? Do you or do you not support UN intervention in the Korean War? Yes or no, no more evasion, no more word games.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago (10 children)

You said that the Koreans "benefitted" from UN involvement, now you're saying you don't support UN involvement? Would you deprive Koreans of the benefit of being infected with smallpox?

Or is this another one of your word games, where I correctly understood your position, but because you didn't technically explicitly say it it doesn't count? The classic "motte and bailey" tactic?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago (12 children)

You support UN/US intervention. UN/US intervention included infecting children with smallpox. You know this, I've told you repeatedly and you have neither denied nor condemned it, you haven't even acknowledged it. Because you support it. In the same way someone who defends Nazi Germany and goes mysteriously silent whenever the Holocaust is brought up supports the Holocaust. You are fascist scum.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 19 hours ago (14 children)

"I only support infecting children with smallpox, and this crazy leftist called me a fascist over it!"

Maybe try not supporting biological warfare if you don't want to get called a fascist, fascist.

 

This remains relevant as Ukraine has never apologized for these atrocities, continues to reject that these attacks constituted "genocide," and has criticized Poland for establishing July 11 as a day for commemorating the victims. And of course, it still uses the same slogans ("Slava Ukraini"), the same symbols (such as the red and black flag), and reveres Stepan Bandera (who was the head of the OUN, which in turn founded the UPA which carried out these attacks).

 

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/5524375

Context 1 2

Many abolitionists have complained to me that, as a traveling performer, I have not spoken to my audiences on the issue of slavery. I have received many angry letters attacking me based on assumptions about what my silence means.

Allow me to make my position clear: I oppose the institution of slavery. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, I believe it is a "moral depravity." I feel that way about other things as well.

After the raid on Harper's Ferry, the mood among Southern leaders was an existential panic and unstoppable lust for revenge. It reminded me of the Alamo. There was no reasoning with those leaders, nor could action be taken by congress. It would have required replacing most of congress and overturning decades of bipartisan negotiation and compromises. Even in the best case, it would have taken years.

But even worse, the abolitionist, pro-Negro movement quickly decided that their primary goal was not merely opposition to the reprisals or specifically cruel owners, but opposition to the entire institution of slavery, that is, opposition to the entire way of life of Southern plantation owners. And here they decided to draw the line between decent people and oppressive tyrants, which had the following consequences:

It shrunk the coalition. Most southerners support slavery. Anyone who supports the solution of having slave states and free states supports slavery.

It was politically infeasible. What is the pathway that takes us from the present situation to the abolition of slavery as an institution? I do not see how it could happen without a total collapse of the union. As usual, these Jacobins have championed a doomed cause.

The abolitionists have been distributing hundreds of pamphlets about the horrid conditions of slaves. The main effect of this has been to create a population of people in a constant state of bloodboiling rage with no consequential political outlet.

I fear this may be worse than useless. Yes, there are disingenuous proponents of slavery dismissing and censoring all criticism of slavery on the pretext of "states' rights." But there's also valid fear of historical government overreach and that fear gives power to pro-slavery leaders who say that only they can protect Southern culture.

Does this mean slavery should not be criticized? Absolutely not. But it's something I do not wish to contribute to unless if not outweighed by tangible benefits.

Many abolitionists have been single-mindedly focused on slavery, and the willingness of the Republicans to compromise on the issue, and that focus has had the following effects:

Not a single slave was freed by their efforts. Not one fewer lash was delivered by the owners.

It may have slightly contributed to the election of James Buchanan, ensuring that nothing can be done to stop the expansion of slavery into new states. Buchanan also does not support giving women like me the right to vote. A perfectly enlightened being would feel no bitterness about this, but I do.

None of this is the fault of slaves, of course, who are overwhelmingly the victims here.

But if women like me are ever going to get anywhere in this country, we need a broad movement that stands up for the rights of ALL women, REGARDLESS of their views on slavery.

 
 
 

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen says he has met with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who immigration officials say was deported by error, in El Salvador on Thursday.

The senator shared a photo with Abrego Garcia at what appears to be a restaurant.

"I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar," Sen. Van Hollen said. "Tonight I had that chance. I have called his wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return."

 
 

https://lemmy.ml/post/28111691/17749466

This is actually insane. Another user was criticizing the New Deal era and brought up a bunch of points, I commented refuting a bunch of their points but describing two of of them, Japanese Internment and the Red Scare, simply as "legitimate criticism."

@Decoy321@lemmy.world responded "No they’re not. Those two things were caused by far greater international factors. Like, you know, the 2nd World War."

I cited a commission that found that internment was not caused by a legitimate threat posed by the Japanese but was rather caused by racism and hysteria, and that even Reagan agreed with that conclusion and signed a bill paying reparations to the victims.

Well then the mod responded that I was jumping to "inflammatory conclusions" and "personal attacks" because I assumed that when they said that criticism of internment is not legitimate it meant that they were defending internment. They continued to refuse to explain how else I was possibly supposed to interpret such a claim. I still have no idea. Apparently their stance is, "It's not legitimate to criticize the thing I oppose." If anyone can make sense of that, please enlighten me.

Since they refused to explain, I took a guess that maybe the misunderstanding was that they were interpreting "legitimate criticism" as "damning criticism," like that because a bad thing happened during that era, nothing good came of it at all. I made it clear that this was speculation and that any criticism of interpreting it that way only applied if that's what was happening.

The mod responded by permabanning me, removing all of my comments so they don't show in the modlog, and adding this:

Edit: the other commenter essentially proved that they were just baiting people into inflammatory discussion. They kept resorting to personal attacks and flip-flopped on their position solely to continue arguing. This behavior is not tolerated here. Please report such trolls in the future.

At literally no point did I "flip-flop" my position of "internment was bad, actually." Nor did I "bait" them, unless "criticizing internment is legitimate," is somehow "baiting" someone into saying "no it isn't." By far the most "inflammatory" thing that was said was when they said that criticism of internment was "not legitimate." The "personal attacks" I made were stating the fact that the position they had expressed was to the right of Reagan on the issue, and also making a quip about a .world mod defending the Red scare and Joseph McCarthy.

This seems to be a case of a clear case of PTB, the mod apparently misspoke but because they're a mod they can just ban people for calling them out instead of owning up to it.

Edit: My comments are still visible on kbin.earth (thank you @Skua@kbin.earth) so I can provide screenshots:

:::spoiler screenshots

 

context

transcript

DISRUPT INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING NOW!!

OGEY

Niche ocean carrier Atlantic Container Line is warning the fines the U.S. government is considering hitting Chinese-built freight vessels with would force it to leave the United States and throw the global supply chain out of balance, potentially fueling freight rates not seen since Covid.

“This hits American exporters and importers worse than anybody else,” said Andrew Abbott, CEO of ACL. “If this happens, we’re out of business and we’re going to have to shut down.”

[...] U.S. is no position to win an economic war that places ocean carriers using Chinese-made vessels in the middle. Soon, Chinese-made vessels will represents 98% of the trade ships on the world’s oceans.

Hey, Abdul-Malik Badr Al-Din Al-Houthi, how'd I do?

Thank you Mr. President, that's exactly what I meant. But why-

Another day, another banger

 

:::spoiler spoiler

6
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/usauthoritarianism@lemmy.world
 

Context:

This comes from a game called "Queen's Wish: The Conqueror," a retro indie RPG. In the game, you play as the third child of the queen of Haven, a large and powerful nation, but up until now you've lived an idle live with little power and few responsibilities. The queen decides to send you off to reestablish control of lost vassals in a remote continent which were abandoned following a major magical disaster.

There are three vassal states and each has two factions who you can choose to support into power, usually one side being more aristocratic and the other being poorer. You also have the choice of how much you actually follow through with your assignment, you can just run around doing your own thing regardless of what the queen wants. But you can navigate a route where you side with the poor while still negotiating agreements as expected of you and feel like it's a "good guy" route. Although the queen would rather you work with the aristocrats, she's satisfied as long as you get either side to win and cooperate, just so long as somebody's keeping the spice flowing, so to speak.

This conversation occurs with a sage/scholar working in one of your forts in that region, who refers to "The Theory of Inevitable Decay." It's missable, but it's a crucial line of dialogue that recontextualizes everything that you're doing. From the beginning, you see a lot of the mess that was left behind and the power vacuum from when the kingdom pulled out before, but then, it sorta seems like you're fixing things, getting rid of bandits and warlords and establishing order, traditional fantasy hero stuff, and with a kinder, gentler hand, even. But even if you as an individual have the best intentions, you're still kind of setting things up in a way that's dependent on a great power a long way away. Haven has its own stuff going on and it probably isn't going to be knowledgeable about the region, interested in it's long-term well-being, or accountable to the people who live there. Sooner or later, it'll get a ruler who doesn't give a shit about a given vassal, and the vassal will fall to ruin - or so the sage suggests.

Anyway sorry I posted this in the wrong comm, this is just an interesting bit of dialogue from a video game with absolutely no relevance to modern day politics 😇

 
view more: next ›