mechoman444

Just calling the maga-vaxx ultra America freedom shot.

Or the Traditional Republican Universal Microbe Prevention or T.R.U.M.P. shot for short.

Honestly, I don’t really want to get bogged down in a semantic argument over whether particular acts committed during a genocide could also technically be described as terrorism. Both concepts describe horrific things, and I don’t think anyone benefits from pretending otherwise.

My objection is to conflating the two. A genocidal campaign can certainly contain acts that would also meet a definition of terrorism, but genocide is the more fundamental and consequential classification when the objective is the destruction of a people. Once you’re talking about genocide, arguing over whether individual acts within that campaign should additionally be labeled “terrorism” feels almost beside the point.

I’m a firm believer that precision in language matters. That’s exactly why I wouldn’t describe Zionists committing genocide merely as “terrorists.” If the conduct constitutes genocide, I think calling it terrorism actually does them a favor by framing the conduct primarily in terms of political violence or intimidation rather than the deliberate destruction of a protected population.

If you want to call particular acts within a genocidal campaign acts of terrorism, fine. I have no particular interest in fighting you over that distinction. They may well satisfy that description to some degree. But I don’t see why I should concede that terrorism is somehow the appropriate overarching characterization when we’re talking about genocide.

We’re not required to enumerate every potentially applicable offense in order to accurately describe what is happening. If someone commits a dozen crimes simultaneously, identifying the most consequential crime doesn’t mean we’re denying that the other crimes occurred. Sometimes the additional label simply isn’t relevant to the point being discussed.

So yes, terrorism and genocide can overlap. I just don’t think terrorism is the important distinction once the conduct has crossed into genocide. Genocide is the thing that needs to remain front and center.

I literally just gave the definitions of the two terms. They are ideologically two completely different things.

Although I will grant that terrorism can turn into genocide.

Yes. Corrected.

Terrorism is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals.

Genocide is an international crime defined as specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

What happened in 2001 is in fact terrorism.

What’s happening in Gaza is in fact genocide.

Both are bad one is worse. If you can figure out which one is the worst one please reevaluate your life choices.

Satire is a very interesting concept, and I applaud you for bringing it up because I honestly hadn’t considered that angle.

I suppose the standard would have to be that the satire is either blatantly obvious or clearly associated with an account, creator, or community that is specifically known for satire. Beyond that, I’m not entirely sure how it should be handled. I think the moderators would have to use some degree of judgment and due diligence to determine whether something is genuinely satirical when the intent isn’t immediately obvious.

The bigger problem, though, is that places like this are exactly where misinformation tends to spread. The people most likely to fall for misinformation generally aren’t the same people who are going to seek out scientific papers or reliable sources to verify what they’ve been told. They’re often encountering the claim through a meme, a screenshot, or some other highly shareable piece of content.

And that’s exactly why I think these kinds of posts deserve scrutiny. It’s not necessarily that every misleading meme is going to convince someone, but these formats are incredibly effective at giving misinformation exposure to people who may have no reason to question it. The combination of a false claim, an authoritative looking presentation, and massive exposure is what makes misinformation particularly harmful.

No, the sub isn’t supposed to do anything that I want.

What the sub is supposed to do is remove content that is blatant misinformation, manipulation, and propaganda.

Actually, to be totally honest with you, I wouldn’t even really be upset with manipulation and propaganda. It’s really just the misinformation part that absolutely gets to me.

Stating untrue things as fact in order to propagate a political agenda is one of the most horrific things humans can do to other humans, because a lot of people will believe it. That’s a big part of why we’re in the situation we’re in now in America.

I’m not asking for a subreddit that simply removes opinions I disagree with. I’m asking for one that doesn’t allow demonstrably false claims to be presented as factual information, regardless of which political side they’re coming from.

Ya. This sub is terrible at removing posts like his. It’s just the same kind of strategy the magas use just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I find it really gross that stuff like this happens.

O! Let’s see if I can stir up some shit!

AI is awesome! I use it all the time.

Socialism is bullshit and sucks really bad!

There are only two genders.

Reddit is a great place with really great communities. Spez is a nice dude!

United States immigration is doing a great job of deporting criminals!

Trump 2028.

😀

Thought of another one: ice is just doing their job!

You’ve really shown your age with that reference.

O God. So gross. I wouldn’t touch you with a dog’s dick.

Like so many other industries, the music industry has been thoroughly consolidated by massive record labels, publishers, and corporate interests. Much of the music we’re exposed to on a daily basis is no longer simply music it’s a commercial product engineered to generate as much revenue as possible.

If you’re looking for something genuinely specific, unconventional, or outside the mainstream, you usually have to go looking for it yourself. Unfortunately, basic searches on YouTube or Spotify aren’t necessarily going to lead you there. Their algorithms tend to reinforce what is already popular rather than uncovering the deeper corners of the musical landscape.

But that music is out there. There is an enormous amount of incredible, creative, and genuinely original music being made right now. You just have to dig past the commercial surface to find it.

Yes you do. Clearly you do. Since you think I’m a fascist or liberal words I have no doubt you don’t know the meaning of and have been responding to me steadily.

Let me ask you a question are you stupid?

Disregard my previous comment if you can still see it.

You are intellectually dishonest, willfully ignorant, and apparently incapable of engaging with anything I actually said. Responding with incoherent babble instead of addressing the argument isn’t a discussion it’s a waste of my time.

Good day.

deleted by creator

Because it is defensible. Capitalism isn’t a living entity that personally insulted you or wronged your family. It doesn’t have intentions, feelings, or a moral compass. It is an economic system. The people operating within that system are the ones capable of abusing it, exploiting it, or using it to enrich themselves at someone else’s expense.

And yes, capitalism has historically produced better outcomes than many of the alternative economic systems we’ve actually attempted. That’s not a defense of every aspect of capitalism; it’s a statement of historical fact. You don’t get to dismiss an empirical observation simply because you dislike the conclusion.

What I find particularly amusing is how you people seem to think that confidently declaring something makes it an argument. You haven’t actually refuted anything I’ve said. You haven’t provided evidence, addressed the historical record, or even engaged with the distinction between an economic system and the people abusing it. You’ve simply produced a handful of indignant declarations, apparently mistaking the intensity of your feelings for the strength of your argument. That’s not analysis. That’s ideological ventriloquism with the critical-thinking portion conveniently removed. If you want to disagree with me, by all means bring an argument. But if all you’ve got is “capitalism bad” repeated with increasing levels of outrage, you’re not actually contributing anything to the discussion.

First of all, thank you. Your response was well-mannered and thoughtful, which puts it several multitudes above the usual riffraff on this platform who encounter criticism of a belief they hold and immediately start foaming at the mouth.

Let me be perfectly clear about what I am arguing against: the wholesale slaughter of an entire group of people.

That is not revolution. That is not justice. That is not liberation. It is simply another form of barbarism, dressed up in whatever ideological language makes the person committing it feel righteous.

Human history is littered with the corpses of people who were convinced that this time the mass killing was justified because their victims were the right people to hate. It has never ended well. One hatred does not magically become virtuous because you attach a political theory to it.

There is already more than enough hatred in this world.

And no, I am not opposed to violence in every conceivable circumstance. There are political leaders in the Middle East and Russia whom I would have very little sympathy for if they were violently removed from power. There are people who commit such extraordinary acts of cruelty that I have no moral objection to the idea that they should face the ultimate consequence.

I can even understand the moral argument behind what Luigi Mangione did, regardless of where someone ultimately draws the legal or ethical line.

But there is an enormous difference between saying some individuals have forfeited their moral claim to our sympathy and saying an entire class of human beings deserves to die.

That distinction matters.

I understand why people are angry. I understand the plight of people being crushed by the economic and political systems we have constructed. I understand the desire to smash a system that appears fundamentally indifferent to the people trapped beneath it.

And I am not even particularly enthusiastic about capitalism. I see its failures. I see its contradictions. I see the suffering it can produce and the ways in which wealth and power concentrate themselves.

But here’s where I draw the fucking line:

“Kill the capitalists.”

No.

Because the moment your solution to oppression becomes finding another category of human beings to exterminate, you haven’t transcended the system you despise. You’ve simply inherited its worst characteristics.

You have become the thing you claim to be fighting.

And that’s the part nobody seems to want to hear.

If your revolution requires you to dehumanize an entire population before you can justify killing them, then congratulations, you haven’t built a better ideology. You’ve just found a new excuse for the oldest human vice imaginable.

We have to be better.

Someone has to be willing to say the quiet part out loud: killing people because they belong to the wrong class does not make us morally superior to the people we condemn for doing the same thing to someone else.

You don’t get moral absolution simply because your victims are different from theirs.

If the only thing separating your politics from the atrocities of the past is that you have chosen a different group of people to hate, then you haven’t learned a damn thing from history.

You’ve just changed the uniforms.

I stopped myself initially from looking but then looked anyway because my self-control is bullshit.

Yes.

Yes. And I think it’s important to understand exactly what a convection oven actually is.

At its most basic, it’s an oven with a heating element and a fan that circulates hot air around the cooking chamber. That’s it. The circulating air improves heat transfer and helps food cook and brown more evenly.

Now, manufacturers have increasingly started calling a particular implementation of convection an “air fryer” and charging a premium for it, as though they’ve invented an entirely new cooking technology. They haven’t. Convection cooking has been around for decades.

An air fryer is essentially a compact, highly optimized convection oven: hot air is circulated rapidly around the food, usually with a basket or perforated tray that allows that air to contact more of the food’s surface.

So when you’re shopping for a range and you see one advertised as having an “Air Fry” function, don’t automatically assume you’re getting some revolutionary new appliance. In many cases, you’re paying extra for a marketing term applied to a convection system that has existed for generations.