Downvotes mean I’m right.
No can do. If I was going to do that, then I would’ve never left behind the things my parents tried to get me to believe, and I’d be a religious conservative. Why cope by pretending Kamala’s a Marxist when I could cope by pretending I’m going to live forever in eternal happiness after I die?
I chose to walk the path of truth and it’s often harsh and unpleasant but it’s the path I’ve chosen.
No, that’s just cope.
That’s like saying, “It’s fine to say that you just hate the government of Nazi Germany, but if that’s the only nation state you hate, it means you’re racist against Germans.” What?
I hate every apartheid state with equal intensity, however, since South Africa ended their system of apartheid, that just leaves Israel. I suppose if Israel’s system of apartheid was ended first and South Africa’s remained, it would mean I was racist against white people or something. Funny how who I’m “racist” towards is entirely dependant on who’s doing apartheid.
Sure. I hope you’re also against Palestinian nationalism then.
“If you’re opposed to minority rule, then I hope you’re also opposed to majority rule.” What? Simply give everyone in the region equal voting rights, as is their right as human beings, and the resulting state would be a Palestinian one.
Pretending doesn’t make it true.
If someone called him a Ricardian professor of economics and someone else was like, “Lol that’s not a thing” I’d say that the first person was more right than the second, with the same disclaimers I said in my comment.
Again, I think the whole issue is silly. Kamala is not her father. And I don’t see being a Marxist as being a bad thing. Considering how much the term gets slung around in US politics to people it doesn’t apply to at all, like Kamala Harris or Obama, I think it’s kind of silly to push back against it when it’s being used with someone who could credibly be called a Marxist. Especially when the much more clear and relevant line is that her father is irrelevant.
I hadn’t looked into it til now but that’s fair. A shame.
What do you mean “that’s not a thing?” I don’t believe he’s ever explicitly called himself a Marxist but he has cited Marx as an influence on his works, as a professor of economics.
One of Harris’s most notable contributions to economics is his 1978 monograph Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution, which is a critique of orthodox economic theories that provides an alternative, synthesizing the work of David Ricardo, Kalecki, Marx, Roy Harrod, and others. Harris employs mathematical modeling to explore the relationship between the accumulation of capital and income inequality, economic growth, economic instability, and other phenomena, arguing that typical theories fail to adequately consider power, class, and historical context.
It seems basically true that he’s a Marxist professor of economics. It’s just not really relevant to Kamala since she’s an entirely different person.
deleted by creator
One of them talked about a Marxist who will get rid of Israel within 2 years and wants to defund the police and give everyone healthcare and provide transgender operations to illegal immigrants, and the other talked about a person who hates the US military, admires China’s handling of COVID, and wants to defund the police and pull out of NATO, and I just wish I knew the names of either of those candidates because they’re both way better choices than what we’ve actually got.
I hate them.
I can’t speak for Hinduism, but this Wikipedia article goes into some of the history of Buddhism in regards to sexuality. Generally, sex of all kinds, whether heterosexual or homosexual or sex with celestial beings, was seen as another one of the 10,000 things that could distract one from the path - but otherwise there was nothing particularly immoral about it. Monks and nuns generally had to follow rules that prohibited both, in order to remove distractions, but those rules were never meant for the general public, aside from the precept against the “misuse” of sexuality, which is ambiguous but thought to refer more to things like SA.
When we’re talking about modern China, or the present day state of other historically Buddhist countries, it would be reductive to say that their current attitudes towards homosexuality are a product of religion, because it ignores more recent events and currents, and other historical factors. China was also historically influenced by Confucianism, which was more homophobic, but it was also influenced by a bunch of other philosophies, and today it’s not very religious at all. Japan was historically very gay, and the 11th century Tale of Genji has a bisexual protagonist fucking everybody.
However, every historical tradition had to adapt to contact with the West during the age of colonialism. China at first tried hard to cling to its traditions and stubbornly refuse to adapt to new, Western ideas, but the “century of humiliation” happened and they realized they had to adapt or die. Japan was not directly colonized, but they still had a massive revamping of their society with all these new ideas coming in. Every country in Asia has a story like that. And then you have another 100 years of stuff happening after that.
China’s modern day homophobia does not come from a place of “The Buddha said this was bad,” rather, it comes from seeing homosexuality as a Western invention, and a symptom of “bourgeois decadence.” Sadly, such brainworms are common in many socialist countries. There is a stereotype many people have that gay people all live in cities and spend all our time partying at nightclubs, because that makes for better TV than the reality does. Ironically, there are many countries in the world that once had their own more tolerant traditions that were replaced with Western values during colonialism, who now hold those values up as their own against more progressive, modern day Western values.
I wish we could have a higher level of discussion, with an expectation that claims should be supported by evidence. Less ad hominem and conspiracy theories about everyone with a different point of view being a bot. And much less “I heard someone from [group I dislike] say [comically evil thing],” being accepted purely off hearsay with no source.
I think lemmy unfortunately inherited some toxic reddit traits in that regard. If you make something up, whole cloth, that tracks with what people want to believe, you get upvoted, if you make a case with strong supporting evidence but it doesn’t fit with what people want to believe, you get downvoted - it’s circle-jerk-y.
Also, people just seem generally incurious about the world and it’s rich, diverse history, and just want to rehash the same talking points over and over again. Too many big communities are focused on news or current events, not enough on broader historical context or philosophical discussion. I don’t really want to rehash the same discussions about the US election over and over again for the thousandth time. When history is discussed, it’s at a meme level, with a handful of historical events being referenced exclusively, oversimplified and weaponized to own your political opponents. The world is filled with color, depth, life, and wonder, but when site culture is so focused on scoring points, the result is everyone’s too guarded and defensive to appreciate that.
I’d much rather read people randomly gushing about some special interest or rabbit hole they went down, or even just rambling thoughts about whatever, compared to the latest story about the latest thing and discussions where everyone knows where they stand based on their camp. It gets boring.
Again, you don’t get to just say, “No it isn’t” over and over again without actually explaining why it’s not analogous. That’s how basic reason works.
Also, you can put multiple things in one comment so you don’t spam the thread.
i’m not making an argument. i’m contradicting yours.
Yes, you’re literally just disagreeing with anything I (or anyone else on my side) says, with zero supporting evidence or reason. It’s not an argument, just contradiction. It’s obvious that’s what you’re doing, but still hilarious that you would come out and admit it.
wrong. i said it is not causal.
Can you please explain what the difference is between an action being causal of another action vs an action… causing another action to happen?
wrong
Wrong.
Since you seem incredibly confused about both how to argue and basic facts about reality, let me walk you through this.
You claimed that purchasing meat has no effect on whether more meat gets produced, because “they make their own decisions.” This argument rests on the completely insane premise that paying people to do things does not influence their behavior or make you complicit when they decide to do what you paid them to do. If this were true, it would lead to the absurd conclusion that hiring a hitman to kill someone would not make you complicit in the act, because, by your logic “they make their own decisions” regardless of who’s paying them to do what.
If you want to dispute that, you have to actually find a fault in that chain of reasoning, not just say, “Nuh uh” over and over again.
An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Why did you make four separate one line responses to my comment, all at the same time? You realize you can put multiple things in one comment lol.
Also not only is that exactly what happened, but you’re literally doing it again. This is just the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.
Why not? You’re saying that market signals don’t matter, it’s individual choice all the way down. You’re paying people to produce meat and put it on the shelves, but according to you, that doesn’t have any effect on the amount of meat produced and put on shelves. How is that not analogous to paying someone to kill someone and then pretending that that doesn’t make you complicit?
You don’t seem to understand how analogies work. You don’t get to just say “Nuh uh” when I follow your principles to their natural conclusions. That’s just a basic form of logical argumentation.
This thread has made me realize that while I was watching the hearings on it purely for comedy aspect, there were actually people out there being like, “Yeah that makes sense.”
Love it when the government takes away our stuff. Please, take away more of our stuff. Love me that security theater.
If you don’t like the app, just don’t use it. Nationalism is a hell of a drug.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with data security and everything to do with other social media companies lobbying to eliminate a competitor, using anti-China sentiment and fear-mongering as a justification. It’s all about the money.