World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, I agree with everything you just said, but make no mistake, the monsters committing genocide are still human beings. Denying that blurs the line of the purpose of violence done against them and makes it difficult to understand that we must constantly be vigilant against rhetoric and propaganda that advocates for genocide as it is scarily easy for people to fall into patterns of thinking that can justify genocide.
It is irresponsible to say that, because they are actively committing genocide against a population, they are no longer human beings and that is why they deserve violence. It's an unnecessary extra step that opens the door for the very same genocidal thinking. They are people who have engaged in genocide with no signs of slowing down or stopping, and for that one reason alone, deserve violence until their threat is quashed. That is enough for me; I see no reason or benefit to dehumanize them to justify righteous violence.
I think being biologically human is not morally important to me. You could clone my own muscle tissue(assuming you find any) and I would have no objection to trying it on a bun. Nor to you making a fleshlight and fucking it; you do you.
These things... There's nothing to them but violence. And that's important to remember; they can't be negotiated with, because there's nothing else they want, nothing else they are. They want to kill rape mutilate and ruin, and they won't stop til they're dead. This isnt me being a bigot; they'll tell you that them fucking selves! They're really fucking consistent about it! There is no diplomatic option, and no surrender they offer could be trusted, if they're even still capable of surrender.
Even if you could prove we live in a simulation, perform a breakout attack, and disable PvP flags for the middle east, a mavical perfect solution that instantly stops the bloodshed with no threats or coercion; you would still be comitting genocide on the kapostanis, in the same way exterminating the buffalo was a genocide of the plains tribes of north america. More so, maybe. Their entire culture, and its modes of cultural reproduction (killing and raping and generally thinking of new ways to be awful towards Palestinians, importing settlers to stolen land, etc) would be destroyed. A people would he undone. Until they just decided to fucking do slave raids into Africa or whatever shit. And if they're so Fucking vile that they do paradox soft tolerance on stopping a Fucking genocide, I don't think preserving their lives merits much thought.
I think they need to be killed (are we in a simulation? Can you un-pvp an area?), and if we're going to be doing genocide (by stopping then from doing a genocide), i cabt think of any way to do it but killing them (fwiw, the head of MSF agrees). And I think you're making it harder for the angry 19 year olds who are going to have to pull the triggers. Those kids don't need more PTSD than they're already gonna get from this, y'know?
Plus by insisting they're human, youre leaving more room for their bad faith bullshit and appropriation of (all) Jewishness, which could get real people killed, and not just by delaying an end to their genocide. People are going to die because of this shit, Human people, all over the world, who are at worst wrong and kind of shitty about this, and at best doing their damdest to stop it, and in every case don't deserve to fucking die. You're increasing the potential for splash damage and innocent lives to be lost by calling kapostani's human.
I'd love if there were a solution other than violence. Violence fucking sucks. Fuck, aside from the human costb there are no green wars, you know? The climate does not need this shit, I really wish they could and would just Fucking Stop.
But talk to one. They'll tell you themselves; can't stop won't stop. So its harm reduction time. And I don't cry over spilled Nazi. Neither should you.
This is becoming frustrating. We are on the same page that violence is the only answer; I'm only insisting that we understand that the violence has to be done against our fellow humans. It is a tragedy, but one that must be enacted because, as you say, there is no negotiation to be had here.
Denying their humanity weakens the claim of righteousness and, moreso than enabling room for their bad faith bullshit, directly feeds into their bad faith claims of antisemitism as dehumanizing them removes genocide from the argument and all your left with is killing animals/barbarians/evil monsters. I don't know about you, but that argument is wholly unconvincing to me. You can certainly claim that because they've engaged in genocide, that's why they've lost their humanity, but again, it's an unnecessary mental step that gains us nothing and weakens the argument for deploying violence against them.
For the soldier / PTSD argument, I again disagree. Soldiers kill people. There should be no way around that fact. Dehumanization and making it easier for soldiers to mentally compartmentalize the taking of life is not a good thing and can easily be warped to make soldiers follow any order, regardless of the moral imperative. The soldiers can and should be made to understand that they are committing a traumatic amount of violence and death in order to stop an entire genocide. Violence is a tool and it must be wielded responsibly and with full understanding that the violence is both necessary and just.
Also chill with the faux philosophical ramblings of simulations and video game analogies. I don't care what you believe outside of this context, but this is a serious issue and talking about "disabl[ing] PvP flags for the middle east" belies that this is the real world (simulated or not) with real, serious consequences. It damages your entire argument and makes you come across like you don't see the actual human pain and suffering this massacre has caused.
There are times violence has to be done against fellow humans (right now against the Russian elite, for example; I really don't think fighting a fucking meat grinder war is necessary but States would rather kill millions of civilians and dumb kids than fix the problem directly and make themselves vulnerable).
I don't particularly care about being 'righteous' or glorious war or any of this crap. I want to stop people dying.
Ive laid out that I don't particularly care about biological humanity. Just the things you can do with it, and if you wall those off, as happens to basically all of them with fascism, all the reasons I care about people stop being relevant.
This applies to members of my own family, but none of the ones I could possibly reach are doing genocide, just some awful animal stuffing itself into a bottle and ranting on Facebook somewhere, which required a brief period of mourning and moving the fuck on. Hope they die before drinking their kids' inheritance, but its not worth the social disturbance of killing them.
But when youre comitting a genocide, youre already doing all the things that would be bad about killing a fascist, but at a much higher volume.
Theres ending a culture. That's a bad thing about genocide. But either they're Jewish (lol, I know, but for the sake of argument we can pretend) and that culture exists in thousands of cities all over the world, and only individuals (which fascists arent in any of the ways that make that precious) would be lost, OR they're just murder-ghouls whose existence is only atrocities, in which case it extra needs to happen, we are better off without.
The video game analogy was a thought experiment, the hypothetical "even if you had a magic switch to just make it so nobody could do violence or even so much as fuck woth each other, no matter how badly they wanted to, everyone is completely safe from each other" in shorthand people understand and explaining what that (in a fantasy world where that could happen) might look like, mostly to avoid 'what if's' because I'm rarely sure anyone's arguing in complete good faith, even in more generally sensible places. I know thisisnt a fucking game. If this were a fucking game I'd be good natured about it. Or at least only a little bit of an asshole.
I'm aware people are dying. I don't think we'd be talking about this if they weren't.
I think when you become a fascist, most of the death has already happened. Most of the death that matters at least. Again, I have personal experience coping with this. I think most people do by now. Theres a range where you can pull them back, but after a certain point they're just lost, and it only looks like the person you knew/loved.
Even a chicken has honest feelings, but fascists kind of don't. Theres no moral wrong in killing them, except scaring others and traumatizing yourself by killing something that looks human. Hence the dehumanization. Because they need to be killed; they won't stop any other way. I fucking hate them for that.
I see where youre coming from, and your arguments aren't completely invalid; I just think youre wrong in this specific case.
I also think we see the same problem, and the fact there's only two options left, one of them we both agree is completely unconscionable and not worth mentioning, the other we agree really fucking sucks.