It’s insane how obsessed libs are with this shit. If you give them any opportunity to reaffirm their loyalty to the government they’ll leap at it with everything they’ve got.

The NYT is what billionaires want to tell me, and if they expect me to pay for the privilege they’re out of their minds. Oughta be paying me to read that trash.

If you were talking about actually independent sources providing other perspectives then you might have a point.

The hating Israel ain’t looking too bad either lol

They respect other nations sovereignty

Uhhhhhhh???

Jesus Christ I’m so tired of this shit. “What if climate change is actually good because you can grow food in colder climates? Then we wouldn’t have to change anything, which I really don’t want to anyway.” “What if masks actually make you more likely to contract COVID? Then I wouldn’t have to wear one, which I really don’t want to anyway.” And now, “What if exposing yourself to radiation is actually good for you?”

This is absolute nonsense. The Wikipedia article is full of “[unreliable source?]” and “highly controversial,” and the video starts out with stuff like, “Actually, all the experts agree with me, they’re just afraid of speaking up,” which instantly destroyed any willingness to suspend my disbelief on this nonsense.

Yes, there is a tiny amount of radiation in a banana that isn’t enough to cause harm. But that has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear reactors. The difference between “harmless” and “extremely lethal” with radiation can change drastically depending on factors like distance, in ways that are not intuitive to most people. Treating radioactive material and radiation produced by a reactor with extreme caution is the best practice regardless, because if things go wrong, they can go very, very wrong. You cannot mishandle a banana in such a way that it destroys a city, which is a something I never thought I would have to explain.

Furthermore, your dismissal of other forms of green energy is outdated, it may have been true 20-30 years ago but the technology has advanced and will keep advancing and with the massive upfront cost of reactors it doesn’t usually make sense to build new ones (although keeping existing ones running is often reasonable imo).

If you’re gonna push this then at least present actual evidence.

Kiseido Go Server (KGS)

If KGS’s UI looks like it hasn’t been updated in 20 years, that’s because it’s already perfect. There’s no ads, it’s purely functional, it does exactly what it needs to do and nothing more. If you click on “KGS Plus” you have the option to spend money on lectures given by human pros. Otherwise it’s completely free, and it’s still an active go server that’s been around forever.

As the clip says, it’s on the caps of their uniforms.

I don’t live in Maine or know much about the guy so I have no input on that, I’m just saying I know it. And tbf my perspective is somewhat skewed as I recognize a lot of symbols for the purposes of threat assessment.

Yes, absolutely.

But why skulls though?

For all intents and purposes, I’m opposed to death penalty. I am, in practice, less prone to violence than the vast majority of people. But I’m also honest and transparent about my beliefs.

The working class is so far from power that it’s virtually impossible to achieve victory while pulling punches. Either we roll over and accept things, or we go all out and use whatever means and tactics are most useful to secure power. If you go halfway and present an actual threat to power (even through nonviolence) they will use any means available to neutralize that threat. Failure means death, and it could be generations, centuries even, until there’s another opportunity for change. If you’re not prepared to use every method at your disposal to win, then you simply shouldn’t pick up the fight in the first place.

Of course, nonviolent tactics can be useful and pragmatic, in many cases, they are more effective than violent tactics. However, the choice of tactic should be driven by an honest and pragmatic assessment of the actual circumstances, and not by preconceived ideological notions about morality. And that goes both ways, it is also unacceptable to prioritize violent tactics just because someone finds them more appealing or exciting. And for the record, I’m not saying that violent tactics are the most suitable for the present circumstances. I’m just not willing to write them off for all circumstances.

For example: Suppose a resistance cell in France captures a group of SS soldiers as prisoners, but the Nazis are on their trail and preparing an attack. If the cell doesn’t execute the prisoners, there’s a chance they will be rescued and will end up contributing to the German war effort. On the other hand, perhaps those prisoners could provide valuable intel that outweighs the risk. The decision on whether to execute them should, ideally, be based on these tactical considerations, rather than either an emotional aversion to violence or an emotional desire for revenge (no matter how deserved it may be).

If you don’t have your head in the game and your eye on the prize, and the other side does, then you’re probably going to lose. And fighting and losing is worse than not fighting at all. It’s better to give up and roll over than to go out and get a bunch of people killed over a hopeless cause.

Naturally, all of this is very unrelated to the reality of how the death penalty is used in the present day, which I oppose unequivocally.

Yes, revolutions do tend to be bloody. That doesn’t mean that I have to choose between endorsing every act of violence or condemning every act of violence.

The reality is, in any conflict, innocent people usually end up getting hurt. It’s unfortunate, but if that conflict means preventing or ending other conflicts, then it’s potentially justifiable in my eyes.

If the government is, for example, drafting people en masse and forcing them to kill and die for no good reason, then overthrowing that government is justifiable, because innocent people were getting hurt anyway.

THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

-Mark Twain

I didn’t say that. I’m not giving some kind of blanket endorsement about “axing anyone involved in ownership.” It’s not an all or nothing deal.

I’m opposed to the bourgeois state using the death penalty against proles.

Compared to election season? Nah. But everybody sees different stuff on Lemmy.

GMT-11 wins because nobody remembers to nuke them.

I’m Jewish btw you racist fuck.

Damn, that’s some nice bait you got there. In one line, you, accused people of being racist despite not even knowing what race you are, while simultaneously impling that Jews can’t be Nazis. Not only that, you first baselessly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a racist, then also accuse them calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi.

It seems like you’re just here to troll, but I’m up to give you the benefit of the doubt nonetheless.

Charlie Kirk was an awful person. Being glad that an awful person is dead does not make someone “a piece of shit” or “a psychopath,” unless you consider the vast majority of humanity to fall into one of those categories. How many people celebrated Osama bin Laden’s death? Was every one of those people, “a piece of shit,” and “a psychopath?”

This moral grandstanding about violence is something I did when I was younger and it came from a place of privilege. I had no enemies, I wished no harm on anyone, anywhere. Because why would I? Any fight I came across, I had the potential to simply walk away. Pacifism is an easy position to hold when your life is secure.

But not everyone has the ability to walk away like that. For some people, it’s an existential struggle with nowhere to run and no chance of mercy through surrender. Those people are, most likely going to feel that they do have enemies, people who they’d be glad to see gone. The way you’re judging people so severely for that, I have to question whether you’ve first made an attempt to actually understand their perspective, or whether you’re only considering your own experience.

There are some people who remain committed to pacifism and nonviolence even when under serious threat. They’re very courageous, and often more than a little crazy, but they earn my respect. For every one of them, there’s a bunch more people who use the term to claim moral superiority over everyone based on living in a (literal or metaphorical) gated community, where violence is neither useful nor tempting. Where, rather than nonviolence being a difficult sacrifice, it’s more like an excuse to ignore the plight of those with backs against the wall and condemning them for struggling for survival in a morally impure way.

You strike me as the latter. Maybe I’m wrong, but if the shoe fits, wear it. And, just fyi, nonviolent shit will get you killed.

“Charlie Kirk said that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns.”

“You brainwashed idiots are making stuff up and falling for outrage bait! What he said, if you look at the full quote, is that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns, AND a certain amount of traffic fatalities is worth it to have cars.”

“How does that additional context in any way change the relevant part that we find horrible?”

“You should just know, and if you can’t figure out why I think it changes it you’re a fucking idiot.”

What a conversation.

I suppose this is the part where you take offense to me summarizing your position instead of using direct quotes, while not explaining how anything you said is actually meaningfully different.

Pretty much every country was a member.

“Every country was responsible for the invasion of Korea because everyone was in the UN.”

“Finland has no influence over the UN because we’re not on the security council.”

Choose one.

“Don’t start wars” is a lesson we’ll hardly need opportunities to learn about, no matter how many there are people are still going to start them again and again.

“Don’t start wars” is not the only lesson to learn, also, “Avoid getting involved in wars unless you have a very good reason, even if you didn’t start it.”

Not members of the Securit Council though who made the decision or the United Nations Command

Which returns to my previous point that “the UN” at the time was essentially just the US, the UK (whose support was bought with the coup in Iran), and France (who got US support in Vietnam in exchange).

But it also happened before I was born, so my possibilities on affecting the outcome are pretty limited.

Then why are we even talking about it? Because it provides an opportunity to learn from mistakes and avoid repeating them.

Well, your country is part of the UN and as you’ve emphasized it was a UN intervention so I’d say it’s pretty clear which side of the war you have a greater ability to influence and therefore a greater responsibility to critique.

In that case I return to my original statement. “Damn, maybe we should stop doing them then.” I don’t have any control over what North Korea does or did, but I do, at least theoretically, have influence as a voter and a citizen over what the US does, so I’m going to focus on the things within my ability to influence. And your response that “North Korea started the war” seems largely irrelevant.