Samvega

joined 2 years ago
 

Banned from a politics sub for not accepting that killing innocent people is reasonable. Fuck this shitty place.

 

I asked them to clarify what Dems were conserving.

Wikipedia: Right-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable…

They didn't confirm that Dems are conserving 'certain social orders and hierarchies'. Did they not confirm that because they'd immediately show themselves to be wrong? Or am I just so clueless about what right wing politics is that I am not worth educating?

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago

"We want liberty, justice, and freedom for all." Awesome.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 months ago

The media wants a horse race. Any foregone conclusion wouldn’t get people on the edge of their seats on election day.

The fact that this is possibly the case, and maybe even almost certainly so, is fucking aggravating.

However, I do believe this race is stupidly close, just because I have so little respect for a large proportion of the American electorate. When people eat that much sugar, drive rather than walk, and watch that much Right Wing propaganda, you're going to get insanity.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 months ago

It has made me smile to know I am not completely alone, thank you.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it

How many people died in Gaza today? I wish I had an opportunity to stop that.

but I live in the reality of the viable options

Yes, and I am unhappy that the options all involve 'innocent people are dying right now'. This bothers me.

If it's the moral high ground to say that killing is wrong, then it is also the moral high ground for you to say "The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse". You're saying that hurting innocent people is bad, yes?

Having to choose to hurt some or more innocent people is not a choice I am enthused about, no matter what the practical reality is. It would be churlish to criticise someone without food for complaining about their practical choice between going hungry and starving, I feel.

Practical concerns do not replace morality. Someone might have no choice but to abandon their children because they cannot afford them: this does not stop them from being harmed by the moral weight of what, in all practicality, they had to do.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You have a bad friend if he

Apparently, friends cannot be women or non-binary.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 4 months ago

Either way, the reality any sane person can understand is that there are much better odds we see movement from Harris than we do from Trump.

I completely agree with that. I admit to being impatient for change now, because innocent people are dying now. It is sad that elections (and electorates) get in the way of such important moral principles.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

For someone who claims to have strong convictions you sure have a hard time actually standing up for and defending what you are saying.

I'm saying that killing people is wrong. If you showed me Harris had committed to holding Israel accountable and creating a ceasefire, I would be a big fan. It's not hard to be better than Trump or the Republican party, they're odious.

You can't blame me for my perception that the Democratic party is aiding Israel by sending them weapons. You can blame me for caring about the lives of innocent people, though.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're not very good at holding a conversation. I'll leave you to complaining about the media inventing sexism, racism and fascism. Maybe you will be excited to find out how fascist Americans can be when Trump fans harass voters as this election comes to a close. Or maybe you will start talking about how the media is inventing it.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago

I’ll vote for the candidate who wants a cease-fire

I would definitely vote for a candidate who committed to pushing through a cease-fire, if I could vote. And if that person wasn't Trump, because he'd be lying. And he wouldn't say that anyway, because it's not macho enough.

 

These are people who would have never, ever voted for Trump, but billions of dollars are being spent by the Democrats to slaughter our loved ones and our families. Israel has been decimating south Lebanon, where many of our relatives live, and now this administration is deploying US troops to the Middle East. Not exactly a winning strategy if they actually want our votes.

Some people think of a Trump vote as a protest vote. I have heard arguments being made along the lines of “Trump is not the person who is committing the genocide right now” or “Well, we didn’t have any wars under Trump”. I personally disagree with this, and consider Trump to be a fascist and fearmonger who deeply traumatised our communities during his presidency. He was a hateful leader who slammed the door on refugees by implementing a Muslim ban. While he didn’t start any wars, he did escalate existing wars in the Middle East and vetoed a series of bipartisan bills that aimed at prohibiting arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

 

The belief that Israel’s actions amount to apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide are “worthy of respect in a democratic society”, an employment tribunal has concluded in a landmark decision.

 

Anti-Semitic United Statesians in shambles?

 

First Sea Lord Adm Sir Ben Key said he was “truly sorry” to the women who had suffered “misogyny, bullying and other unacceptable behaviours” while serving their country. “We must be better than this and do better than we have,” he said.

 

Subtitle: Springfield’s immigrant community was targeted by far-right extremists months before Trump shared racist rumors

 

Carol Higgins was 15 when she first reported her father’s abuse to the police. They told her he wouldn’t be charged. But she refused to let it rest until he finally stood trial

Higgins gave a 17-page statement, signed it and was given a painful internal examination. At the end of it, she was informed that Appleyard would not be charged. Apparently, the case wasn’t strong enough. There was no forensic evidence. The police told her that because her brother, who was 14, was a minor, his account was inadmissible. They said that, should the case reach court, her name and sexual history would be dragged through the mud. Could she handle it? Higgins said she couldn’t.

[...]

In January 2019, after more pushing by Higgins, who refused to let it rest, Appleyard finally stood trial. It took the jury less than two hours of deliberation to find him guilty of 15 sexual offences against her, including rape and sexual assault. He was sentenced to 20 years. Earlier this year, Higgins also received £15,000 compensation and a public apology from West Yorkshire police, acknowledging that her “extremely serious and truthful allegations took too long to come to justice”.

 

Temperatures above 50C used to be a rarity confined to two or three global hotspots, but the World Meteorological Organization noted that at least 10 countries have reported this level of searing heat in the past year: the US, Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India and China.

In Iran, the heat index – a measure that also includes humidity – has come perilously close to 60C, far above the level considered safe for humans.

Heatwaves are now commonplace elsewhere, killing the most vulnerable, worsening inequality and threatening the wellbeing of future generations. Unicef calculates a quarter of the world’s children are already exposed to frequent heatwaves, and this will rise to almost 100% by mid-century.

view more: next ›