I fucking drive, whaddya think?

I 100% agree with your stance on antinatalism, but I’m confused about condemning utilitarianism. I don’t know if I’d call myself one, but certainly I fall into the broader category of consequentialism rather than deontology, that is, the morality of an action is determined by the consequences you can reasonably expect that action to have, as opposed to morality being about abiding by a set of rules and fulfilling moral obligations. To me, as a vegan, this is fully compatible with a vegan perspective, consuming animals or animal products leads to the consequence that animals will suffer, and I don’t want that to happen, so I don’t do it.

I don’t see how utilitarianism in general would imply antinatalism. You could make a utilitarian argument for it, I suppose, but it’s possible to “make an argument” in favor of just about any position from just about any moral framework. That doesn’t mean that the framework actually implies that position. It’s fair to critique utilitarianism, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to draw a hard moral line against it, because individual utilitarians can still be good people who agree on specific issues like veganism, like being against antinatalism, etc. There are good and bad people who subscribe to just about every broad philosophical framework like that.

Moreover, I’m not sure what moral framework you’re proscribing here.

Oh thank god, finally.

That is a bad bit, very confusing.

How would an actual owl like yourself “pretend” to be an owl? Doesn’t make any sense.

A Gallup poll the following week revealed nearly 60 percent placed total blame on the students, while only 10 percent blamed the guardsmen (30 percent had no opinion) [reactionary source]. [Howard] Means cites multiple uses of the phrase “They should have shot more of them [students]” and similar sentiments.

A lot of this is that Americans were and are bloodthirsty psychos, but the media also spread a bunch of lies, for example claiming that the students had been lacing the water supply with LSD.

“Have you got anything without war?”

“Well, there’s war egg sausage and war, that’s not got much war in it.”

“I don’t want ANY war!”

“Why can’t she have egg bacon war and sausage?”

“THAT’S got war in it!”

“Hasn’t got as much war in it as war egg sausage and war, has it?”

“Could you do the egg bacon war and sausage without the war then?”

“Urgghh!”

“What do you mean ‘Urgghh’? I don’t like war!”

“Sshh, dear, don’t cause a fuss. I’ll have your war. I love it. I’m having war war war war war war war baked beans war and war!”

Talk about committing to the bit.

Computers can never be held accountable, which is exactly why they’re looking to have them make management decisions.

“Oops, ‘the AI’ accidentally launched a missile at Iran and then they retaliated launched a completely unprovoked attack against us, now we have no choice but to invade.”

Maarva kidnapped an indigenous-coded kid, gave him new name, and assimilated him to her culture.

I do have to give them credit for consistency here. If you’re going to take issue (and I assume this person does) with Russia relocating orphans out of a war zone into safety (and even call it a “genocide”), then I suppose you should also condemn Maarva for taking Cassian out of a situation where he was going to be killed.

I suppose saving children instead of leaving them in front of moving steamrollers violates the NAP

E. coli take my energy

Indirectly? Yes. They’re responsible for creating and upholding a declining status quo while suppressing all left-wing alternatives and not only allowing the right to run wild but also legitimizing them through concessions and appeasement.

Directly? Also yes, because they literally promoted Trump thinking he’d be easier to beat and that they could more easily sell themselves as the “lesser evil” and coerce voters into coming out if they were up against him (which they’ve also done with other far-right candidates).

Literally any scale, any perspective you want to use, they deserve plenty of blame.

The US has always been run by vampires,^[1] and they moved into Russia in the 90’s.^[2] Vampires love their little power games, political intrigue, etc, but they rarely do direct confrontation.^[3] There’s only one thing that could provoke them into it: aliens. Ofc, they’ve had UFO technology for a long time,^[4] but they’ve never actually captured a live alien, and a lot of the stuff is too advanced or biocoded, so they can’t unlock the full potential.^[5] A UFO must have crashed in Ukraine and now both sides think (or at least suspect) that one of them survived the crash.

They probably haven’t captured them yet (if they actually even survived), but if either group of vampires gets ahold of them, it’s fucking game over. They’re gonna go straight for the Galactic Union of Planets and it’s gonna be full-on, Castlevania style demon armies from here to the fucking Pleiades.^[6]

And I know there’s some fucking crackpot accelerationists out there like, “Actually, it’d be good if the vampires got the alien because then the GUP would have to intervene.” Yeah, just like they “had to intervene” if the vampires got UFOs.^[7] Well, where the fuck are they? The Council is filled with these fucking, 90,000 year old vegetables hooked up to a bunch of tubes,^[8] they will not respond quickly enough and they have never taken the vampires seriously enough.^[9] Also, if they do interfere, then we’ll have failed the test and we’ll be eternally forbidden from interstellar travel.^[10]

Honestly, our best bet at this point is to launch the nukes. The Watcher will shoot them out of the sky, come down and tell us we failed, suck the extra CO2 from the atmosphere, and take control of the planet from the vampires.^[11] Like at this point we’re gonna fail either way, the only real danger is the vampires getting to the council, and that’s way more important than just our planet anyway. And we’d be much better off under the Watcher than under the fucking vampires, that’s for sure.^[12]

The assumption that we have to fight Russia because they’re the “bad guys” is grounded in this idea of “idealist interventionism,” that American foreign policy is motivated by benevolence and promoting freedom and democracy. There was a time when that was politically hegemonic in both parties but the complete failure of the War on Terror has broken that down and bred more skepticism of those assumptions. That skepticism goes in all sorts of directions, from leftists who correctly identify that US foreign policy is motivated by the material self-interest of the ruling class, to nationalists who think that it’s motivated by idealism but should be self-interested, to libertarians who see it all as “the government doing stuff.”

Trump’s approach to foreign policy is built on appealing to nationalists and libertarians. Any ideological differences between the two are easily papered over by the democrats screaming “Russian bot” at anyone who doesn’t want to kill a bunch of people halfway around the globe for the sake of “freedom,” and by parading around the Cheney’s, who are emblematic of that ideology (and it’s failures). When Trump persued an exploitative mineral deal with Ukraine, that’s red meat to the nationalists who are just as warmongering as the liberals but think the problem is the veneer of idealism, in reality, Trump is likely to keep the Ukrainian meat grinder running but he’s selling it to his base with, “We’re doing this for our own material benefit” because they respond better to that than, “We’re doing this to uphold international norms and promote democracy.”

Trump once bragged about sending “offensive weapons and tank killers” to Ukraine when Obama only sent, “pillows and blankets,” and that’s true. All that really matters is Trump being able to distinguish himself as an “outsider,” as an alternative to the status quo everyone’s fed up with. It’s kinda similar to how Trump promoted COVID vaccines while trying to take credit for them and his supporters booed him for it, because if the Democrats are saying one thing, his base wants and expects him to say the other.

https://tankie.tube/w/t99y1HbjaCHmUwUrfcKwPW

Also what’s with the title? “Crime and Punishment?” What was wrong with, “I Killed An Old Lady To Steal Her Money So My Cute Sister Wouldn’t Have To Marry A Rich Asshole But Now I’m Bedridden With Guilt And The Police Are After Me?”

Also the first one was waving around a blaster while the driver was acting friendly. And both happened in or on the Senate building, where she’d worked for years.

Both moments really made it sink in that what was happening was real, after years of planning and maneuvering and playing politics, and it only took a few minutes for her life to transform forever.