[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 54 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This is such a condescending form of analysis that totally misses the mark. It's basically just, "Trump was bad, but some people still like him. Why? Must be because they're just too dumb to remember things." There's no actual evidence that people have forgotten any of the stuff they mention, it's purely just that.

To attribute the issue to memory would imply that there was widespread agreement while he was in office that he was bad, which has faded over time. But Trump's approval rating for most of his time in office hovered around 40%, similar to Biden's. So what's actually happening is not that people were on the same page about Trump being bad when the events of his presidency were fresh in their minds, but rather, that his supporters never agreed with/cared about the things the article is saying in the first place. Framing it around memory is nonsense.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 47 points 2 weeks ago

I've seen too many examples throughout history of people trying to use nonviolence and do things the right way and just getting slaughtered because the other side simply does not care to be a pacifist. The world is clearly a better place because people employed violence in WWII to stop the Nazis. And street fighting in the 30's was one of the ways that the Nazis secured their power in the first place.

Nonviolent methods are tools that are useful to have in your toolbox, and in many situations, they are more practical in achieving your ends. But there are cases were violence is more practical, even necessary, and one shouldn't shy away from it when it's needed. You gotta have your head in the game, the stakes are too high. A diversity of tactics is best.

The logic that violence is oppressive so it should be renounced in all cases in order to reduce oppression is idealist. You have to look at the actual evidence and material situation to evaluate what effects violence will have in a given situation.

Punching Nazis is cool and good. Just try not to get arrested for it because it'll take you out of the action longer than it will them.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 39 points 3 weeks ago

Hitler didn't win because he beat Hindenburg after Thälmann split the vote. He lost to Hindenburg, the center-right candidate endorsed by the social democrats, then won anyway because Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor.

The social democrats were the ones who refused to back Thälmann, the only anti-Hitler candidate in the race. And the same way that the communists called them "social fascists," the social democrats used similar rhetoric, frequently saying that the communists were no different from the Nazis, that there was no difference between the far left and the far right.

But also, we don't have to keep rehashing 100 year old grudges from another continent.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 month ago

"Plants rights activists" out in full force in this thread lol

-3
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

Before I begin, I have a confession: until recently (until today, in fact), I was a tankie. But this morning I just woke up and realized everything I believed and everything I'd been saying was wrong, and my critics were right about everything. And so, I have decided to completely and totally adopt their way of thinking.

The above image is an example to illustrate how my thinking has changed. You may be familiar with "Russell's Teapot," a thought experiment from Bertrand Russell where he imagines that someone says that there is a tiny, invisible teapot, floating out in space. He argues that while such a claim cannot strictly be disproved, it can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He goes on to explain that while he could not disprove the existence of God, he still considered himself an atheist, because he did not see sufficient evidence for the claim of God's existence to be credible.

In my previous (tankie) way of thinking, I would have agreed with this idea, that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I now understand that this made me a Bad Person. Suppose that, as in the beautiful diagram I drew in MS Paint, the claim is not only that the teapot exists, but that inside of the teapot, there are a bunch of tiny invisible people who are geopolitical enemies of the United States and they are committing genocide against innocent people. Again, before, I would have said that that only makes the claim more implausible and would require extraordinary proof. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and I can only say that I deeply regret and apologize for my statements. The existence of the teapot can be proven incontrovertibly, by the following logic:

  1. If you claim that the teapot does not exist, you are denying that the genocide inside it is happening.

  2. If you deny the genocide is happening, you are a genocide denier and therefore a fascist.

  3. Fascism is wrong.

  4. Therefore, it is impossible to correctly deny the teapot's existence.

As a brief aside, I should mention that in addition to my political conversion, I have also experienced a drastic change in my religious beliefs, as it is now trivially easy to prove that God exists. According to the Torah, God flooded the world, wiping out virtually all of humanity, including countless ethnic groups. To deny the existence of God makes you a genocide denier and a fascist. However, it should be added that to worship God is genocide apologia, which is also fascist. The only non-fascist belief, which is necessarily correct, is that God exists and is evil. Moving on.

Before, I believed that it was ridiculous for the US to spend as much on the military as the next 9 countries combined. I wanted to slash the military budget to fund domestic spending, schools, hospitals, making sure bridges don't collapse, helping the poor, etc. I see now how wrong I was. The Genocide Teapot exists, somewhere out there in space, in fact, there could be countless numbers of them out there. Therefore, the real progressive thing to do is to further cut domestic spending and have everyone tighten our belts so that we can produce as many missiles as possible, to be fired out into space indiscriminately, in hopes of hitting a Genocide Teapot.

However, we must also consider the possibility that these teapots could be located here on Earth too. Teapots are a form of china, which is a very suspicious connection. Clearly, the US must be permitted to inspect every square inch of China in search of these invisible teapots, and refusal to comply should be considered an admission of guilt. But we should not, of course, limit ourselves to China. Perhaps there are Genocide Teapots in Russia, or Brazil, or Germany, or Canada, who knows? I do, because to deny that Genocide Teapots exist in all of those places is genocide denial, which is fascist and wrong.

In conclusion, we should bomb every country in the world simultaneously, including ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with me is a war-loving fascist.

Thank you.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 71 points 2 months ago

The median age of the senate is 65. The article is just cherry picking.

42
submitted 2 months ago by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
38
submitted 2 months ago by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
23
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

President Trump kept America out of new wars and brought thousands of brave troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and many other countries. Joe Biden has undermined our military readiness and surrendered our strength to the Taliban.

When Trump pulls troops out of Afghanistan, it's "bringing thousands of brave troops home," but when Biden does the same, it's, "surrendering our strength to the Taliban." He brags about "keeping America out of foreign wars" while at the same time bragging about assassinating "the world's number one terrorist," Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was an extreme act of provocation.

This is taken from the issues page of Trump's campaign website, and there are several more statements relating to foreign policy, frequently and boldly contradicting each other. It's a perfect example of the "If By Whiskey" tactic. So what's actually going on here? Well, to understand the reasons for this equivocation, we need to analyze the foreign policy positions of Americans.

Broadly speaking, people fall into one of four camps: Idealist Hawk (liberals), Idealist Dove (libertarians), Realist Hawk (nationalists), and Realist Dove (socialists).

Idealist Hawks believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence and spreading freedom, and the fact that it repeatedly fails to do so (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) is explainable by a variety of excuses. Generally, they are more interested in current events and easily persuaded to support intervention based on seeing a bad thing happening, without a broader analysis or explanation of the situation or how things have played out historically.

Idealist Doves also believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence, but they see that as a bad thing. They are generally right libertarians or hold libertarian values, they see war as another example of wasteful government spending as it tries and fails to improve people's lives, which they generally don't see as a valid goal in the first place. Being idealists, they are still rather easily duped into supporting war and militarism, often, they will support a "night watchman state," with police and the military being the only legitimate functions.

Realist Hawks are nationalists who believe that states pursue their own material interests and are right to do so. They are incapable of distinguishing between the state's interest and their own. Some few are rich enough to actually receive benefits from US foreign policy, but most just root for America in the same way that they might root for a football team.

Realist Doves, which I am a part of, do not believe that US foreign policy is not grounded in benevolence and does not benefit the people it claims to be helping, but also (generally) that it doesn't benefit the majority of people at home. We see it as being driven by and for class interests, and are opposed to the class it benefits.

Trump's foreign policy equivocation, and his "America First" slogan allows him to appeal to both the Idealist Doves (libertarians) and the Realist Hawks (nationalists). He can't consistently take any line on any specific thing. If by Afghanistan, you mean a disastrous nation-building exercise, wasteful government spending, and endangering our troops for the sake of helping foreigners, then of course Trump opposes it. But if by Afghanistan, you mean exerting American strength, intimidating Russia and China, and weakening terrorists to keep America safe, then of course Trump supports it.

In reality, to the extent that Trump has coherent beliefs at all, he is a Realist Hawk, a nationalist, and his record reflects that. But part of the reason he was able to get anywhere was because he was able to triangulate and equivocate well enough to dupe anti-war libertarians.

Unfortunately, in American politics, the conflict is generally between Idealist Hawks and everyone else. This is part of what allows the nationalists and libertarians to put aside their differences (the other part being that libertarians are easily duped). Realist Doves are not represented anywhere, the Idealist Interventionists consider us Russian bots along with everyone else who disagrees with them on foreign policy (regardless of how or why), the Idealist Doves are extremely unreliable, and the Realist Hawks may see the world in a similar way but have diametrically opposed priorities.

tl;dr: Trump's halfhearted antiwar posturing is an obvious ruse that only an idiot would fall for, but painting everyone skeptical of US foreign policy with the same brush helps him to sell it and to paint over ideological rifts that could otherwise be potentially exploited.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

>"Nothing justifies genocide."

>Proceeds to make arguments justifying genocide

I have no idea how you could possibly think this supports your position on things.

If Major Kira was living under a government that offered no alternative to genocide, she'd take up a phaser and start killing government officials, you know, like she literally did, in the show. She'd never condone someone who supported genocide, even if it meant resorting to violent opposition instead.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 35 points 3 months ago

Legitimately I can't tell how much of it is self-delusion and how much is just blatant lying. Either way, these geriatric ghouls don't deserve this level of mental gymnastics.

Even liberal media like the NYT are admitting it, and we can all see him with our eyes, I don't see what this sort of blatant denialism is supposed to accomplish other than demonstrating in-group loyalty.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 113 points 3 months ago

At least 2 previously undecided voters now support Biden so I suppose this headline is technically correct, it's just completely meaningless and insignificant statistically.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 68 points 3 months ago

raspy voice

The gaslighting will continue until morale improves.

7
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Objection@lemmy.ml to c/shitposting@lemmy.ml

What is Soulism? Soulism, also known as anarcho-antirealism, is a school of anarchist thought which views reality and natural laws as unjust hierarchies.

Some people might laugh at the idea and say it's not a serious ideology, but this is no laughing matter. If these people are successful, then consensus reality would be destroyed and we would return to what the world was like before the Enlightenment. What did that world look like? Well, you had:

  • Ultra-powerful wizards hoarding knowledge in high towers, reshaping reality to their whims, with no regard for the common people

  • Bloodthirsty, aristocratic vampires operating openly, and on a much larger scale than they do today

  • Viscous, rage-driven werewolves terrorizing the populace, massacring entire villages with reckless abandon

  • Fey beings abducting children and replacing them with their own

  • Demons and angels waging massive wars against each other with humans caught in the crossfire

Fortunately, out of this age of chaos and insecurity emerged a group of scientists dedicated to protecting and advancing humanity by establishing a consensus reality and putting a stop to these out-of-control reality deviants.

Before, if you got sick or injured, you'd have to travel across the land through dangerous enchanted forests seeking a skilled faith healer or magical healing potion. But with consensus reality, easily accessible and consistent medical practices were instilled with the same magical healing properties. Once, if you wanted to transmute grain into bread, you had to convince a wizard to come out of their tower and do it, and they were just as likely to turn you into a newt for disturbing their studies. But thanks to consensus reality, anyone could build their own magical tower (a "mill") and harness the mana present in elemental air to animate their own "millstones" to do it! These things were only made possible by consensus reality.

Now, I'm not saying that this approach doesn't have it's drawbacks and failures, and I'm not going to say that the reality defenders have never done anything wrong. But these "Soulists" want to destroy everything that's been accomplished and bring us back to the times when these supernatural reality deviants were more powerful than reason or humanity, and constantly preyed upon us.

So do not fall for their propaganda, and if you see something, says something. Anyone altering reality through belief and willpower, or any other reality deviants such as vampires or werewolves, should be reported immediately to the Technocratic Union for your safety, the safety of those around you, and, indeed, the safety of reality itself.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 34 points 4 months ago

I agree with the article except for this part:

Joe Biden’s success in 2020 was due in no small part to his deliberate rejection of Clinton’s failed strategy. “Scranton Joe” courted both Sanders voters and blue-collar whites. He promised expanded infrastructure spending and tougher trade deals. Progressive young people might not have given Biden their votes in the primaries, but he campaigned as a candidate who saw them as part of his coalition and duly won their votes on Election Day.

I think the main reason Biden won in 2020 is because of COVID. That and correctly recognizing that people despise both him and Trump and realizing that if he simply stays out of the limelight people won't pay as much attention to how bad he is. Neither of these factors are working for him now, it's much harder to stay out of the limelight when you're the one in charge.

I suppose there may have been less open hostility towards the left compared to Clinton, but only because that's such a low bar.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 35 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You are casually ceding the "not wanting people to kill themselves" ground to the right while also allowing them to paint themselves as caring about human lives when in reality they just want to control women's bodies and protect fetuses, not people.

"Every life is valuable" is obviously a left-wing stance because the left are the ones who actually care about people's lives, even when they're disabled, downtrodden, and painted as burdens on society.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 32 points 4 months ago

Completely delusional. Literally just making up a reality and choosing to live in it regardless of anything that happens.

view more: next ›

Objection

joined 5 months ago