GarbageShootAlt2 @ GarbageShootAlt2 @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

475

Joined

2 yr. ago

You shouldn't try to answer clinical questions with Merriam-Webster. It's a very redditor thing to do and just as incorrect as that would suggest.

There is a substantial difference between "being suicidal" in the clinical sense and having decided to commit suicide. We have no reason to believe, lacking an avenue for the "self expression" of immolation, that he would have jumped from a bridge or hung himself in the attic. As far as we can tell, he looked at the present political situation and judged that the most effective thing he could do to accomplish what he believed had to be accomplished was by doing something that required the investment of dying. That's not the same thing as "being suicidal", though you and I both disagree with his choice for our respective reasons.

I expect that with most of them, it's a way to honor the accomplishments of their forebears, which I think is fair enough or at least not the same as "hubris". You can make a left-critique of the rather Confucian ancestor veneration going on here, but that's something else entirely.

The laws of a depraved society should never be confused with morality or treated as the rules of engagement, "maverick"

First objection. Why would the people in power change the voting system that got them in power? Well, the spoiler effect has cost both Dems & Reps a major election before. Getting rid of that glitch would be a win-win for major and minor parties!

This inference is completely defective. Of course a system has a cost, but the cost to a major party of changing to rcv is in many cases to completely hold decades-long strangleholds they previously had. It's like saying, uh, "Right now Hugh cooks his food, but that sometimes results in him burning himself, so of course he'd be glad to sign on to eating food raw!"

humans = currency

??? Currency being capitalism is also wrong, but that's just baffling

Well, Russia experienced two more, but one of them was very directly due to WWII

It's systems built to reward the exploitation of the many by a few powerful individuals. It's not a sin that is the issue, it's the actual political-economic systems that are currently being maintained.

Some liberals sided with the Nazis, though many were rather ideologically confused by the whole thing. There certainly were many liberals sent to the camps, and any would-be German Voltaire would have been sent there pretty quickly if not just shot outright.

...The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men

-- Hitler in Mein Kampf

‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

Excerpt from an interview with Hitler. Note the part about "private property".

Obviously he railed against Marxism all the time, but these were the most obvious quotes. He clearly did defend private property, and I'm not really sure that there was any collective farming like he describes of his "German ancestors".

It's valid to point that out, but I think that OP is talking about the modern usage of the Confederate flag, not the original use. At least, it becomes a much more coherent message that way.

As far as I can tell, that's mostly not what the study says. What it is saying is that the event of a judicial election and the pressures associated therewith demonstrably cause systemic disadvantage to defendants and appellants near election time, but it doesn't actually address how the overall rulings of elected judges compare to appointed judges except for one study it mentions that does say, in your defense, that they [elected judges] reverse death sentences less often in the states that have the death penalty. However it goes on to say:

These studies leave open several important research questions. For example, they generally do not compare systems, and thus do not address whether some re-election or retention election systems have more of an impact on criminal justice outcomes than others, or whether reappointment processes may also have an effect.

And later says:

Much of the empirical research considering the impact of judicial selection dynamics on criminal justice outcomes has focused on elections. Further study is needed to understand the incentive structures created by appointive systems, particularly those that provide for reappointment. The few studies that have considered these dynamics suggest there may be reasons for concern.

For example, in one such study, Joanna Shepherd examined how the political preferences of those determining whether to extend a judge’s tenure impact judicial decision-making. Just as the public’s preferences may impact case outcomes within electoral systems, Shepherd found that the preferences of governors can have a similar effect in states where they play a role in reappointing judges. 92 Indeed, Shepherd determined that as governorships change hands, so too do judicial rulings; when a Republican governor replaces a Democratic governor, judges’ rulings in a variety of cases, including criminal cases, shift.93 Shepherd’s findings suggest that reselection pressures are a concern even outside the election context, and highlight the need for further inquiry into the dynamics of appointive systems.

And that's really the full extent to which it addresses the subject of appointment.

No it is democratic, which the KPD at this point was no longer. They were working on setting up a Stalinist dictatorship and no longer a council democracy.

I was going to let it go, but this really bugs me. What are you even talking about here?

This does not read to me as a response

I'm pretty sure Yog isn't the one doing the deleting, though I don't know 100%, but you can still see deleted comments in the modlog, so the context isn't actually lost, just inconvenient (that's how I know what all the comments were, since I got here after the deletions). Anyway, I've antagonized yog multiple times and he's never deleted any of my comments. My view on him is that he's very driven and determined with his agitating and gets a little caught up in his passion for it when he gets resistance from people, especially since a substantial amount of that resistance if from genuinely reactionary assholes. I can understand being frustrated with him, though.

There's no evidence Trump will be worse on Palestine than the Dems. The idea that Trump is worse than any future frontrunner is myopic alarmism, you'll be whipped into a new frenzy just the same with most or perhaps all future candidates (some of whom will be substantially worse). Furthermore, most people live in states where their vote doesn't have any impact on the winner of the election, sothem voting blue only serves to legitimate the popular mandate of the genocidal dems. I don't know, this is all very obvious but it's like my 50th time saying it in this stupid thread.

You say we're on the same side, but your ideology is one of supporting perpetrators into perpetuity because the tautology you've been talked into has no off-ramp, no point in the future where you stop taking "emergency" "temporary" "provisional" "compromises" to "reduce harm" and instead make actual positive progress. There will always be a new election, there will always be a new Republican platform that declares an interest in doing heinous shit, and very frequently there will be more sincere fascists than Trump, like if Tom Cotton ever runs, and there will never be some demon democrat you won't vote for because they are running against someone who is 1% more reactionary, and that thereby necessitates everyone giving them unconditional support.

It's an unserious strategy based on the panicked mindset of people who are stuck in an abusive relationship with liberal media.

Vote third party, put actual pressure on the Dems to make concessions. If they have your vote no matter what, they have no reason to listen to you.

The other fellow was being a real asshole, so I think perhaps the mod was primed to a very hostile reading (e.g. of our friend yog being a paid shill or something), since I think you were being obnoxious but it's counter-productive to take mod action against something so trivial when just responding suffices.

If you're interested in an answer, while I don't entirely agree with Yog on most issues relating to China, Marxists are obliged to have quite a lot of evidence to back up their claims while liberals can just sort of coast off of cultural norms because their ideology is already hegemonic. I don't keep a list of links because I don't take notes for almost anything, but I definitely make sure to remember the titles (etc.) of useful articles so I can retrieve them in a circumstance like this. That's very inefficient though, so it makes sense that yog would just keep them on-hand for common liberal talking points to prevent needing to look them up over and over.

Entryism doesn't work, putting yourself under the discipline of a party apparatus that runs contrary to your goals means you either get extricated or you conform.

The dems don't give a shit about primary results. Bernie's relative strength in the primary meant nothing to Biden and understandably so, because why should he give a shit when Bernie endorses him and the bulk of the progressives are so whipped they vote for him anyway?

Alright, think beyond one election cycle without being cowed by ridiculous alarmism. The status quo is great for Republicans, they'll continue to do their christo-fascist thing, but the idea that they'll just overturn elections is ridiculous and not founded in anything but an offhand comment Trump made that gets interpreted hysterically (what he probably meant was that, if elected, he would hit the term limit and he doesn't give a shit about whoever the next Republican is). If Trump was really passionate about being an autocrat, the Capitol riot would have been much more than the clown show it turned out as.