China living rent free in their head.

And they are doing it all by themselves, no sanctions required.

Palestine needs our support though.

How many weddings should I bomb to get the Nobel peace prize?

The Palestinians are a sovereign people being genocided by an occupying armed force. What are they supposed to do? Just wait there patiently to be exterminated one by one?

This could easily be stopped by Israel just getting the fuck out of Palestinian land.

Democracy is when the people can vote for ~~their politicians instead of countries like the PRC where they are forced.~~ a selection of candidates handpicked by the US government.

A good occasion to remember that a lot of major US companies use slave labor at home, and the government does nothing about it.

This isn't about human right, it's just economic warfare.

Of course he's from lemmy.world lmao

Veganism is often rationalised under the form of a syllogism : it is immortal to kill and exploit humans, and non-human animals are equal to humans, therefore, it is immoral to kill and exploit non-human animals.

I would like to argue that point because I'm having a problem with it. I don't think "equal" is the adequate term here, it's very broad and vague. Some people are tall, some are short. Some are strong, some are weak. Not every human is equal, so of course not every animal is equal. It may be right to say that they are, but it's necessary to precise in what way. Maybe "equal in their ability to feel" would be appropriate.

Secondly, the syllogism you present assumes that the moral consideration extended to animals should directly correlate with the treatment of humans. However, many vegans, including myself, base our views not on comparison with human treatment but on the intrinsic value of animal lives. We believe that exploiting animals is wrong primarily because they are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain, sadness, fear, and even depression. Your syllogism is focused on the physical form of the individuals, but that's not what we think about.

An important point that we vegans advocate for is not justifying exploitation based on physical attributes. We believe it's not acceptable to exploit someone because their skin is dark, or because they have female genitalia, or because they have hooves. The value of an individual extends beyond mere physical characteristics. Our moral perspective posits that inflicting intentional harm on sentient beings purely for our pleasure is ethically wrong. If a chair were sentient, hypothetically, it would deserve similar considerations.

So, if you want to use a syllogism, the correct one would be as follow: It is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings; humans and non-human animals are sentient beings; therefore, it is immoral to cause harm to and exploit both human and non-human animals.

The inter-species violence of humans against cattle and prey is part of nature, because we simply are a productive omnivorous specie just like any other.

I understand your point, but I don't think an appeal to nature is a very productive type of argument. Our whole existence revolves around surpassing nature, that's why we plant crops, harvest them with motorized tools, live in brick houses, etc... There is a reason the definition of natural is "as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people".

Moreover, many societal rules explicitly contradict what might be considered "natural" behavior. For instance, despite murder and rape occurring in the animal kingdom, human societies have made such actions illegal. Hence, relying on what's "natural" as a guidepost for morality doesn't seem consistent with the progression of our civilizations.

I think that as leftists, we should strive to abolish any kind of ideology that preaches the unjust discrimination and exploitation of others based on their physical attributes, whether it be speciesism, carnism, racism, sexism, ableism, and so on...

Yeah, it's happening all over western liberal democracies. Inflation is going crazy and wealth inequalities are growing at an alarming rate. Because of that, people in power are afraid of a popular uprising, and they would rather see fascists rise to power and protect capitalism, than an economical shift to the left and lose some of their wealth.

It happened many times before. The more commonly known examples being:

• Prominent industrialists and agricultural landowners providing financial support to Mussolini's party because they feared the rise of socialism, and saw in him a means to counter it.
• German industrialists who were fearful of the rise of the Communist Party and provided financial support to the Nazi party.
• Spanish landowners and businessmen who were alarmed by the social and economic reforms of the Second Spanish Republic and supported Franco's rise to power.

History tends to repeat itself.

It's very real, here are two legit sources in french:

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/justice/le-senat-donne-son-feu-vert-a-l-activation-a-distance-des-cameras-ou-micros-des-telephones_5875187.html

https://www.rtl.fr/actu/politique/loi-justice-l-activation-a-distance-des-cameras-ou-micros-de-telephones-validee-par-le-senat-7900272299

You can use the service of your choice to translate them if you don't understand french.

The last election was a shitshow.

As usual, the younger generation didn't bother voting, and the older one voted en masse for conservative candidates because they are those our media push for, while at the same time slandering progressive ones.

In the election runoff, we had the choice between an openly fascist candidate from a party literally founded by former Nazis, and a "light fascist" one that people were seeing as the lesser evil. Though it's pretty obvious now that his fascism isn't so light (he openly admires Petain, a french leader who collaborated with Nazi Germany), and I hope people will remember that for the next election and understand that voting for a democratic candidate in the first turn if very important.