autismdragon [he/him, they/them] @ autismdragon @hexbear.net

A real autism! Bisexual demiman. I like media. Extraordinarily DILF.

---

Read more

Posts

5

Comments

254

Joined

5 yr. ago

The consequences of federation.

Yeah the only things that changed for me much for the pandemic was masking when I grocery shopped, extra SNAP, and the stimulus payments.

The secret is to barely go outside.

I mean I have grocery shopped one a week the whole time but I've literally not been sick, not even with a cold, this whole time (and I used to get colds all the time). I didnt even mask for awhile there though I decided to start again because of the surge and the fear of long covid.

The vote is overwhelmingly to keep lol.

Its a knee jerk for them. They can't help it.

there would need to be institutions set up to perform executions on a mass scale and institutions perpetuate themselves

This is a good point I hadn't even though of yet! I'll add it to my quiver.

Non-negotiable.

Mooooooooom, autism dragon's going to die on this hill again.

Whether or not capital punishment is acceptable is actually a pretty highly debated subject in leftist circles, even in ML ones, believe it or not. Ive spoken to many leftists (including MLs) who, like myself, think that retributive "justice" is a poisonous policy for a state to carry out, no matter how evil the individual being killed or otherwise punished. Others believe it should only be carried out in the most extreme situations, the iceberg tip of evil only. I'm pretty damn close to being an absolutist about rehabilitationism and restorative justice. My list of exceptions is very short and mostly based on pragmatism rather than "this person is evil enough that I would kill them". And I do carry that out to Nazis, maybe not like, Himmler, but definitly rank and file Wermacht members who I see as absolutely capable of being rehabilitated. Killing them just because its easier is a waste of a life that could be saved.

I know, I know, "dont execute Nazis" seems like a bad hill to die on. And if after a revolution the state decides that executions of reactionaries is necessary then its not like I'd betray the revolution over it. I'd advocate against it (in a democratic centralism way) but I'd still stand strong in communism and support the revolutionary state. And I wouldn't weep over a Nazi corpse. But my position on capital punishment, and retributive justice, remains what it is. My preference for how these things are handled remains what it is.

Obviously, there are situations where for practical reasons capital punishment is necessary pragmatically, like the Romanov killings, but I consider that a tragic situation and not something to be celebrated. And also obviously, the actual process of revolution will involve a lot of killing of those who take up arms to oppose revolution, and the leaders of the counter revolution and such. But again, I see that as a practical necessity not something to be celebrate. It should be something we HAVE to do, not something we WANT to do.

The bloodthirst in leftist circles has always been the one thing I've found difficult to vibe with. I'll engage with it for either reasons of catharsis or genuinely believing killing a particular person would prevent worse things from happening, but I try to fight even the catharsis urge and don't celebrate pragmatic killings. I don't weap over them either, its a neutral necessity to me.

I know the responses I'll get her already so

• "No excuses for the terror" - I really can't say anything but "Yeah, I know he said that, but I don't agree with the extent that leftists take that as an excuse to be rabidly bloodthirsty and pointlessly cruel. I also think that since the days Marx said this we have developed quiet a bit on the front of things like restorative justice. And finally, I think Marx was talking about the process of revolution here, not a post-revolution State.
• "What, so you think the Nuremberg trials were bad?" I have trouble with this one admittedly. I think there was some practical necessity to going through the process here, and that the Holocaust was so horrifying there was some practical need for some people to be punished for it. And I dont think anyone executed in Nuremberg could have been rehabilitated. But if I'm going to actually stick to my principles here, then I think everyone executed here should have suffered the same fate as Hess at worst instead.

Basically, I think in cases of someone who we know can't be rehabilitated, we should just separate them from society somewhere minimally comfortable where they can't hurt anybody. We shouldn't even make them suffer, since again I think retributive justice is poisonous and infects the state and people doing it. The goal should be to keep society safe from them, but not try to "punish" them either.

• (in counter to the above point) "Its a waste of resources to keep them alive" - I think whatever minimal resources we use to keep such people alive are worth not poisoning ourselves with retributive justice, but I understand if you disagree. I don't think the number of people for whom rehabilitation is truly impossible is large enough for us to say that keeping those people alive is a waste of valuable resources, because it wouldn't be that many resources lol.
• "killing those 4 million nazis instead of releasing them after forced labour would have made the world a better place today" - Understandable argument, but my counterpoint is that rehabilitive justice wouldn't be about putting someone in prison or forced labor for a "term" they "serve". It would be about separating them from society until (and if) rehabilitation is achieved. And when a process of restorative justice is successfully carried out. This isn't what the Soviets did, what the Soviets did with their 4 million Nazis is totally different from what I advocate for. And if a person never successfuly rehabilitates, then they should never reenter society. I would generally advocate that we keep trying with someone until either we succeed or they die, baring those extreme cases mentioned previously where we know there's no point in trying, in which case we just put them somewhere where they can't do any further harm.

I also think the vaaaaaast majority of our modern Nazi problem doesn't exist because we freed former Nazis. Neonazis sprung up on their own and as far as I can tell were not guided by living former Nazis. A lot of the currently most Nazified areas are areas the German nazi party would have seen as Undermenchen anyway lol.

That said, I once again emphasize that I will not cry over Nazi corpses, and if the Soviet state had decided that executing all 4 million of these prisoners had been the way to go, I would defend it as something I personally wouldn't have done, but understand the motive behind.

• "what about sociopaths who can fake rehabilitation and manipulate the restorative justice process" - First of all, this is a small percentage of people and not worth changing our entire policy over. Secondly, these people would simply be identified and treated differently as a result (that way would still not be execution). We definitly would have to be careful not to allow such people to abuse the restorative justice process to further abuse victims though, I agree with that. But a well crafted program would avoid those problems I think.

If this breaks the "no idealism" rule in the mods eyes, then well, I disagree because I know plenty of MLs who agree with all or most of my take here, but I'll accept it if so.

And yes I know this is mostly a meme subreddit. But I'm autistic. Nothing is just a meme to me!

kim jon um

lol

ETA: Also gotta love the "they're looking to NORTH KOREA for help" as if this is an obviously and on its face evil bad terrible thing to do.

I don't think assholishness is necessarily a bad thing, it's value-neutral.

Really depends on the context ie who you're being a dick to and for what reason.

Like we had a "dont be a dick to your comrades" rule for a reason, for example.

I've seen the backlash to "let people enjoy things" lead to some behavior I'd consider fairly toxic in its own right. I bring up the minors thing because they tend to be the most passionate about fandom stuff, and I see grown ass adult grumpy shitheads harassing them for liking inoffensive things. Which I think is kind of the source of that attitude.

"Let people enjoy things" for me isn't about "don't criticize things people like". Its about "dont go out of your way to do targeted harassment towards people over things they like". I mean there are obvious exceptions like streamers who streamed wizard game, but even things like that can cross into harassment.

Like, if you check my post history i'm literally currently dealing with a mod of a wrestling forum who's so obsessed with bunny cop that he has alerted both his politics and how he moderates around that fact, and claims its because Judy is his comfort character. So OBVIOUSLY I think people can become to obsessed with their things and make it part of their identity in a self-warping way. And that those people can use "let people enjoy things" as a shield for that behavior.

But I think there's a middle ground here because if you think "I'm allowed to criticize things" cant be used as a shield for toxic behavior as well, you're wrong.

I wasn't accusing you of it. We aren't in DMs right now. It was a general statement about something I think is true, that people can use "criticizing things' as a guise for assholishness and even bigotry. Not saying you're doing that.

You should probably care about things like misogyny and harassing minors lol. Which is what my post was about.

Eh that depends. The reactionary ragebait Youtubers who do this should all be thrown into a pit together and I'm suspicious of anyone echoing certain talking points about certain media because of them.

Criticizing things is fine but there is in fact a line where you become the asshole for doing it too hard or in a bad faith way. Or targeting individual people (particularly minors). The PSL thing is a good example because while we can criticize the comedication of it, some of the discourse around it is really misogynistic.

If we gave them a 52 seat majority, the two most conservative Democrats in the Senate would _suddenly become Manchin/Sinemas.

Anyway, its not up to us to _.serve the party with our votes. There is no _{doing our part}. Its up to them to earn it by being a useful party.

Damn Laos killing it!!!!

Lmao nice ableism asshole.

Don't treat a fellow hexbear like the lemmy liberals please. We literally have rules about that.

Went to your profile, saw something I disagree with, posted because autism. shrug

You understand that there's a difference in like, motive right?

Like however you feel about the IRA's methods, their motives is still something worth fighting for. And honestly like when you REALLY fight for something like that, like actually do what's necessary, its a messy process and you're going to do things that moderate liberals look down on as going too far. We can argue about if all of their actions actually serve the cause, but what they wanted to do is something I agree with.

Versus ISIS? Really? What noble and positive goals does ISIS have?