xor @ xor @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

0

Comments

530

Joined

2 yr. ago

And, frankly, this is one of the least morally concerning things Israel has (presumably) done. The pagers were targeted specifically because they were used almost exclusively by Hezbollah.

I think in general it's supposed to be about decentralisation, but god knows scammers will hop straight onto anything with "point-oh" in the name

It sounds hot, though

We do for the ayatollahs though, because they are the ones who actually make the decisions, same goes for Russian presidents and CCP general secretaries

I have a bit more sympathy for the president, since his decisions can all be vetoed by the ayatollah, and he broadly seems to be trying to move Iran in the right direction

I'm on it lads, booking my flight to Tehran now

Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different

Left your reading comprehension at home?

The argument I was supporting is that you don't have carte blanche to do whatever you want to intolerant people. The argument I am making is that you have a moral obligation to rely on the law first because that IS the social contract. Not because the law would punish you for it.

Not all police are the same everywhere, but regardless, you can't just stab people who are being racist.

Just "because nationalism"

Doesn't mean it's not profitable, though!

But there's an important difference between allowing intolerance, and letting the legal system be the arbiter of how it should be disallowed.

Vigilante justice not only deprives the perpetrator of their right to a fair trial and proportionate punishment (yes, being intolerant does not deprive you of your human rights) but also denies the victims their right to see the perpetrator receive justice.

YOU do not get to be the arbiter of justice, just because you think someone is a terrible person. Maybe they're mentally ill. Maybe they have dementia. Maybe they're also a victim of abuse.

Document the incident, protect and comfort the victim, contact the police and allow actual justice to take place.

Because in your scenario they are not a threat of imminent violence, and by being a vigilante you prevent society from enforcing consequences in the way the social contract defines - through the justice system.

Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different.

Lula Brazil is very different from bolsonaro Brazil

From your first source

Figure 1 shows that China had very low inequality levels in the late 1970s, but it is now approaching the US, where income concentration remains the highest among the countries shown

You can't possibly make a reasonable argument that Kamala Harris is a fascist lmao

• Authoritarian: no
• Ultra-nationalist: no
• Forcible suppression of opposition: no
• Militarisation of society: no
• State controlled economy: no

If they're exclusively supporting the right wing candidate, they're not a centrist, then

Oh they absolutely do, but ml has a reputation for being particularly poorly moderated

Why are you unwilling to enlighten us?

This list isn't by percentage with a home - it excludes people who rent, so all this shows is that nobody rents their home in China

Let's go look at your comment history and check, shall we?

Defending yourself and launching invasions or orchestrating soldiers are two different things

It's not defending yourself if you have an army! What a great take 👍

it sounds like the government is giving out plans and commanding the army. The government of ukraine and people from ukraine are two different things. When people ask what's the alternative to send billions to the ukrainian government what they need to understand is that people can defend themself even without an authority on top of them playing war games with soldiers and possibly forcing conscript to go on missions

Oh, why did Ukraine never consider magically winning the war by sheer willpower instead of this "having an army" nonsense, smart!

I'm not twisting anything. Context matters, and the context of your post was you throwing a tantrum after around 10 different Lemmy users calling out your bad takes.

If you believe not being drafted blah blah blah

That's not what I said at all, mere moments after you accused me of "twisting" what you said. What I said, louder for the people in the back is BEING UNABLE TO FIGHT BACK IN THE ENEMY'S TERRITORY, BEING DISALLOWED TO RECEIVE FOREIGN AID AND BEING DISALLOWED TO FORM AN ACTUAL ARMY is the equivalent of rolling over and dying.

This is literally about a judge fining the diplomat half a million, though?? Like isn't this literally the exact opposite of that