frozenspinach @ frozenspinach @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

130

Joined

9 mo. ago

Thank you for the complement! But I haven't read anything, and I don't think being the face that the boot stomps on would make me agree that "laws" enforced in that manner have anything to do with legitimacy. Legitimacy has to do with adherence to principles, consent of the governed.

Something is certainly being enforced in the scenario you have described, but certainly not legitimate laws.

This whole comment simply doubles down on might makes right and has nothing to do with legitimacy.

It sounds like for you the signature of legitimacy is not the soundness of legal judgments as developed within consensus and consent and principle based deliberation, but their enforceability with weapons. And so I think we probably have diametrically opposite ideas of what renders laws legitimate.

Upvotes as a source of truth! This is why /r/the_donald was such a reliable source of truth

but a set of agreements that don’t have the power of law.

Rule of law is about having a culture of respect for law as a legitimate product of democratic institutions. If law is only real to you because it's "real" in the sense of boots, batons and assault rifles, the 'power' you are interested in is not the power of law.

Aren't the ICJ, ICC and UNSC institutions of international law? And haven't they ruled over and over again that the settlements, occupations, blockades, and blocking of humanitarian aid to Palestine have been violations of international law?

I think that's a low effort cheap shot but because there's sympathetic dogpiling voting patterns you get to evade criticism for doing the same thing.

Great point, Holodomor was fabricated by Hollywood on the same fake sets as the moon landing. There's literally no reasonable good faith charitable interpretation that could possibility be referencing a legitimate criticism. This elevates the quality of communication and is an indication of good faith participation in conversations sincerely directed at cultivating shared understanding.

Regardless of your opinion on the current war

"Other than that, how was the play?"

If Russia so wished, they could level Kyiv overnight

AKA the "Jeffrey Dahmer could have been worse" argument lol

Relevant SMBC:

Lawyer: Okay, let's say my client killed his wife. What about the people he didn't kill?! That's six billion people! Don't they matter? Don't they matter?!

Caption: In an alternate universe, Jeffrey Dahmer has a thank you parade every year.

https://smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=299

I don’t use it because I consider it trustworthy in and of itself, but because you probably do

Right but the source you cited was literally saying the exact opposite of what you claimed.

(crickets...)

their proxy war

Meanwhile Russia did the war-war. I think you should do two posts about war-war accountability for every one post about proxy-war accountability.

Thankfully Russia has taken great care to avoid civilian deaths, which is why we thankfully never have to include it as context.

basic facts of the situation

I think it's more the selective emphasis than the 'basic facts'.

its own

I'm trying my best to follow but where did "its own" come from here?

Love Rhythmbox! I used it way way back when I first installed Ubuntu (back when it was good) and it was part of a special nostalgic feeling of having been ushered into this new linux world, and I think it lets you rate your songs 1-5 stars (if you want) and I had a lot of fun doing that.

Indeed, the way to combat bad media is to dispute it with good media, not hide it away and pretend it doesn’t exist.

I would call this a marketplace of ideas fallacy. Rumor and misinformation rise to the top ever bit as much as good argument, and poisoning those conversations with bad faith is now part of an explicit ideological strategy to weaponize those spaces. That phenomenon is as real as thoughtful deliberation, I would say more so.

So if you believe "combat bad with good' works as a matter of practice, I think that argument is obviously unsustainable. If it's "bad things will happen but we should keep it that way as a matter of principle" it's at least a more coherent argument. I wouldn't agree with it but I can understand why someone would find it at least a respectable idea.

that refused to play certain songs

Nazism songs.

The existence of Mien Kamph in a library’s collection doesn’t make the librarian a Nazi,

No but 100 copies of back issues of "Being A Nazi In 2025 The Magazine" probably would, and the present case is more like the latter.

tell me what content is or isn’t permissable

Nazism being the content