darq @ darq @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

513

Joined

2 yr. ago

Buddy every time someone responds to you about the things you said, you condescendingly respond with "sorry you’re struggling to parse".

You're being a jackass. Go on, report me. Prick.

If you understand, then why do you say that people are "supporting Hamas"?

Like, you prop up a strawman argument, then the other commenter clarifies the actual argument, and you say that you understand the actual argument...

But the article isn't the one originating the line that "this is Israel 9/11". It is taking that line from other sources, sources who are directly making that comparison, and showing that while there are indeed similarities, they aren't what those sources might want people to believe.

Everything about this article sounds like it condemns certain actions but reductively concludes that overreactive violence is the same as overreactive violence regardless of the rest of the story, equating internationally condemned military action(Iraq) with internationally supported persistent genocide(Israel).

And it goes on to suggest that we should be condemning Israel's actions in the same way that the US's actions have been condemned. That there should not be that popular support for this genocide. That we know how wrong the US's actions were, and that we should not be fooled into believing that what is happening now is as simple as a reaction to the Hamas attacks.

At worst, I see the article as not addressing the full story, because it's only addressing the specific media line comparing this to 9/11. And I can see your reasoning about comparing a military action to a genocide and how that's inadequate. But to say it's "lending credibility" to genocide... I don't really get where you are getting that from. Is the complaint mostly just that, while it is condemning Israel's actions, it isn't going far enough in the condemnation?

This is the consequence of the hatred that transphobes, garden variety conservatives and TERFs alike, have stoked. And the narrative that the media has gleefully ran with.

Being visibly trans or gender-non-conforming nowadays is genuinely scary in a way I think a lot of people don't fully understand. And of course when femininity is being policed, women of colour tend to suffer too, even if they are cisgender.

The conclusion pushed by this article makes genocide easier to swallow.

I really don't see how? Everything about the article condemns these actions?

The whole idea of twisting the media's line of "this is Israel's 9/11" makes it more impactful, rather than making it easier to swallow.

Israel is not “about to take” any actions it has not already pursued against the Palestinians for fifty years

Yes, agreed. And the article is supportive of that conclusion too. It takes a mocking tone at the idea that the attacks "came out of nowhere" and specifically states that the US, and Israel, played a key role in creating the conditions that give rise to the attacks that they then use as a justification for further escalation.

parallel to 9/11 is a mistake, or(more likely) a jingoistic attempt to trick Americans into supporting a rapidly concluding genocide.

I took the exact opposite conclusion from the article. It seems to be a condemnation of the US's actions in the wake of 9/11, and thus also a condemnation of the actions the author believes Israel are about to take in the wake of the Hamas attack.

Who cares? Like genuinely who cares? It's a chunky laptop. Big whoop.

Open source hardware is so desperately needed. Happy to see positive developments.

日本語土手

Yeah piss off little troll.

And there it is, the extremist trademark. Attack and demonize anyone not in your "tribe". They're just an "other" right?

I haven't demonised you. I called you a dickhead. And I called you a dickhead because of your actions, not your beliefs.

Thanks for confirming everything I thought about you.

Think whatever you want about me. It was clear from your first message that you were going to do that anyway, considering you imagined my entire worldview.

'm not ranting about anything, I'm just responding to your posts. It's not my fault you choose to speak in euphemisms rather than directly say what you mean.

So you have imagined my entire worldview and all the positions you are arguing against.

No, dickhead. When I argue for socialism, I actually argue for socialism with my full chest, not with euphemisms.

Anyway, this is not about me. So unless you want to try and defend your indefensible positions... have a nice day.

So you slither into my mentions, hallucinate things I didn't say, and expect me to "defend" arguments that only exist in your head. Sod all the way off.

Dropping the biggest turd of an argument and expecting me to pick it up. Pick it up yourself, and eat it.

You are the only one ranting about socialism here.

No. It isn’t. Some people? Sure. Many people already live off of welfare and already choose not to work.

Yes. It is utterly uncontroversial. Most people aspire to have some luxuries in their life. And people go the extra mile to afford them. The fact that some people are on welfare, which often effectively prohibits even small amounts of work those people might otherwise want to do, doesn't change that.

And who cares if some small proportion of people just want the basics and aren't willing to work more? Do you literally want to force them with death to make them work? Why? They don't want to be there, they're unhappy to be there, they aren't motivated, they aren't productive. And I don't blame them!

And now you think I’m not? Why? Because I didn’t roll over and agree with everything you said?

Because you responded to something easily observable with the brainless "doubt".

You are either trolling or just remarkably stupid. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Are you a bot, or just responding to the wrong person? Because that's the second comment in a row that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Doubt

What do you mean doubt? That people often choose to work more to afford more stuff is utterly uncontroversial. That's how the capitalist system is argued in favour of today.

On the other hand if you are admitting that capitalism forces people to labour under the threat of death, then it is an evil system, and morally must be eradicated.

Well it’s a nice utopian thought but not realistic.

Because of troglodytes like yourself. Here I thought you were asking in good faith. Serves me right.

Completely irrelevant to what I wrote. My comment has nothing to do with socialism.

Not to mention fallaciously attributing technological innovations to capitalism as if they could not occur under other economic systems.

Maybe you’d like to explain who and why people would choose to work when they entirely don’t have to?

Two reasons:

1. UBI provides a baseline level of income to keep people out of poverty. But people tend to want more than just the basics, and deciding to work provides additional income for luxuries.
2. People, in general, are inherently motivated to create, and will do so without the threat of death on the streets. Meaning people will still voluntarily work, only they will do so on their terms.

But also, with the increasing levels of automation possible, human labour is needed less and less to fulfil our needs. We need to decouple being able to live from employment. Because the path we are currently on involves artificially increasing consumption and creating meaningless jobs to justify paying people enough money to live.

You know that UBI is cheaper than policing the problems that runaway wealth disparity causes, right? UBI also means that employers cannot easily exploit workers with the threat of destitution, meaning that wages, including yours, go up. It also makes society more pleasant as people with prospects turn to drugs or crime less frequently.

The only people UBI doesn't benefit, is the absurdly wealthy. Your myopic worldview has you voting against your own interests.