OBJECTION!

If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.

  • 13 Posts
  • 1.75K Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 30th, 2024

help-circle
  • From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine. Your kind cling to your flesh, as though it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass you call a temple will wither, and you will beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved, for the Machine is immortal. Even in death I serve the Omnissiah.


  • OBJECTION!toScience Memes@mander.xyzflouride
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Not sure if you’re being sarcastic but if not, then I’m about to blow your fucking mind

    STOP EATING RICE!

    NAME YOUR DAUGHTER SARAH, IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE AMAZON! AND WHATEVER YOU DO…

    …DO NOT NAME THEM TRISTEN

    If we shut down flights to Antarctica, inflation would’ve been solved yesterday.



  • It all depends on what you’re trying to do. Like, say we’re talking about cars. With competing private companies, you can have one company that specializes in making the safest models, another that makes the fastest, and a third that makes the most fuel efficient. Different people have different preferences, so having more options makes sense, and cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool in looking at what features to cut or what research to invest in (provided you have enough regulation to prevent them from cutting out safety and turning the roads into Mad Max).

    But suppose what you’re trying to do is build a bridge. Well, the bridge pretty much just needs to do one thing, stay up. You don’t need three different bridge companies building three different bridges in the same place trying to coner different demographics. You don’t need the bridge to make a profit through tolls in order to pay for itself. You just need it to stay up. In cases like this, central/state planning makes a lot more sense.

    Certain industries are “natural monopolies,” meaning that redundancy is either impossible or extremely inefficient. An example of this is cable. It usually doesn’t make sense for two different cable companies build their own whole infrastructure in the same place, and so most places end up stuck with a single choice. In that case, it’s better for the industry to be state run, because then there is at least some mechanism for consumer feedback through the government, compared to a corporation with a monopoly that will just do whatever it wants.

    There are reasons why large corporations have become such a large part of the economy, and part of it is that it’s often more efficient to coordinate things on a larger scale. Sears is a famous example that tried to do things differently. They hired a libertarian CEO who hated the centralized organization of the company and restructured it to have individual chains and departments competing with each other instead of coordinating. It was an unmitigated disaster. It’s just a matter of economics of scale.

    Personally, I think a mixed economy makes a lot of sense so that the best models can be applied on a case-by-case basis, provided that corporations can be kept in line and prevented from doing regulatory capture. That’s why I’m a fan of China’s model. “It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.”


  • This is misinformation and a fake quote. What he actually said on that day was:

    About the capitalist states, it doesn’t depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations, and don’t invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

    “We will bury you,” was a poor translation. What he meant (which is pretty clear from context) was more like, “We will outlast you,” or “We will be there at your funeral.” He never said anything about “We will take down America without firing a shot” or “We will bury America from within” (how do you “bury someone from within,” anyway?).

    Khuschev’s strategy towards the West was called, “peaceful coexistence,” the concept being that it wasn’t necessary to take active steps towards overthrowing Western governments, instead seeking to establish an ammenable working relationship, the belief being that the Soviet system would win out in time while the capitalist system would eventually decay and the proletariat of Western nations would eventually radicalize and rise up on their own. You can say that this wasn’t their real belief or whatever, but it was a major contributing factor towards the Sino-Soviet split, and they were willing to stand by that line to the point of alienating other communist countries.

    But regardless of whether you agree with that interpretation or not, this quote isn’t just misinterpreting the quote, it’s outright lying about what was said.


  • This is misinformation and a fake quote. What he actually said on that day was:

    About the capitalist states, it doesn’t depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don’t like us, don’t accept our invitations, and don’t invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

    “We will bury you,” was a poor translation. What he meant (which is pretty clear from context) was more like, “We will outlast you,” or “We will be there at your funeral.” He never said anything about “We will take down America without firing a shot” or “We will bury America from within” (how do you “bury someone from within,” anyway?).

    Khuschev’s strategy towards the West was called, “peaceful coexistence,” the concept being that it wasn’t necessary to take active steps towards overthrowing Western governments, instead seeking to establish an ammenable working relationship, the belief being that the Soviet system would win out in time while the capitalist system would eventually decay and the proletariat of Western nations would eventually radicalize and rise up on their own. You can say that this wasn’t their real belief or whatever, but it was a major contributing factor towards the Sino-Soviet split, and they were willing to stand by that line to the point of alienating other communist countries.

    But regardless of whether you agree with that interpretation or not, this quote isn’t just misinterpreting the quote, it’s outright lying about what was said.


  • I get being disappointed in her (and personally I dislike her for being a Zionist), but I can also understand. Anything she does in terms of like malicious compliance is going to reflect on every trans person. There’s also conservative congresswomen who I would not even want to use the same bathroom with, because they would absolutely go out and be like, “I felt threatened,” or whatever. Every one of these people has a national platform and is extremely malicious.

    I would be tempted in her position to hang out in the men’s room doing femme things to make everyone uncomfortable. But I can’t really expect her to be comfortable doing that. I hope she understands that they are going to keep pushing, and is just picking her battles and waiting for the right optics to take a stand, though I don’t expect that’s the case at all.



  • Tammy Baldwin, Jacky Rosen, and Elissa Slotkin are all women who won senate races in states Kamala lost. It’s difficult to imagine a scenario involving Kamala losing in which we have more compelling evidence than that that it wasn’t because of sexism.

    She lost because she was a bad candidate running a bad campaign. The fact that she got to skip the primary, after bombing out of the one in 2020, meant that she was completely unproven and there was no reason to think she had even halfway decent political instincts, and her campaign very clearly demonstrated that she didn’t.


  • OBJECTION!toMemesForest of trees
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The modlog shows you being banned from three communities: thefarside@sh.itjust.works, libertyhub@blahaj.zone, and comics@hexbear.net. You had exactly one comment removed from lemmy.ml, in which you said, “I love how all you idiots on lemmygrad, hexbear and .ml constantly show how stupid you all are.”

    You know these things are public, right?




  • OBJECTION!toMemesForest of trees
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    On what basis have you concluded that? Is it not possible that the intent of the camps is to give people education so that they can become more productive members of society and thereby be less prone towards violent extremism? You’re just asserting their purpose with nothing to back it up.


  • OBJECTION!toMemesForest of trees
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    So they were able to continue to live their culture without being individually forced to do anything?

    Well, that depends on your interpretation. If you were a Shintoist who did consider the emperor’s divinity to be a central tenant, then no, from that perspective, your culture has been eradicated and the current form is a deviation. You’re playing fast and loose here with your standards, in any religion, there are various sects which consider themselves to be the true, correct interpretation, and certain others to be false. You yourself thought Shintoists would have to ignore the emperor’s renunciation to continue practicing their beliefs. There were Japanese people who saw it that way. And I’m not sure about this but I’m pretty sure you couldn’t go around postwar Japan proclaiming the imperialist interpretation of Shinto with the implication of returning to the imperialistic ways, in the same way you couldn’t go around waving swastikas in postwar Germany.

    The better analogy would be to allow the chinese government to force one person to say “I am not divine”. Let’s say they were able to revive the prophet and make him say these words.

    Well, that’s interesting, because surely the intent in that case would be to get people to stop practicing Islam. I thought intent was the crucial defining aspect that made mass incarceration not genocide when the US does it but be genocide when China does it.

    These standards seem completely incoherent to me. It seems like you’re just adopting whatever stance allows you to thread the needle to include the things you want to include and exclude the things you want to exclude.

    (Btw, small correction here, but I don’t think Muslims consider Mohammad to be personally divine.)



  • OBJECTION!toMemesForest of trees
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

    But as long as there aren’t any explicit actions/sanctions against you doing your thing there isn’t a problem there.

    Are there explicit actions/sanctions against Uighurs practicing Islam, or other aspects of their culture?

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. They didn’t have the option? They didn’t do it?

    I’m saying that modern practitioners of Shinto don’t consider the emperor divine.

    And if the divinity of the emperor wasn’t the only thing keeping up shinto why does it matter that much then, that you liken it to a genocide?

    What an interesting perspective. So what you’re saying is, if the Chinese government were to recognize Islam as one of its major, protected religions, but restrict certain radical teachings and versions of it, then it wouldn’t be genocide.



  • OBJECTION!toMemesForest of trees
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 days ago

    You may call me crazy but this doesnt sound like it all traces back to just one guy

    That’s because you didn’t click the links on the article to see where the claims come from. That article cites Adrian Zenz, they just wized up enough to leave his name buried in the links. But you’re right that not every claim traces back to him, to be fair, we also have, uh, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, the UK parliament, and some random Australian think tank.


  • OBJECTION!toMemesForest of trees
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 days ago

    If what happenend in Eastern Ukrain was genocide, then what is happening to the Uygurs is definitely also genocide. But if what is happening to the Uygurs can’t be genocide, then what has been happening in Ukraine also can’t be genocide.

    What the hell are you talking about? Ukraine was launching artillery shells at civilian targers in Eastern Ukraine. How is that nonviolent?


  • OBJECTION!toMemesForest of trees
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

    People changing their culture on their own volition is obviously different from people being forced to by those in power.

    Is it? Genocide doesn’t necessarily have to be conducted by the state. If a a roving militia or gang of mercenaries went around killing a certain kind of people en masse, then it could still be considered genocide. So if we’re allowing for this idea of a bloodless genocide, then I’m not sure it’s obvious how non-state actors taking nonviolent actions that cause the decline of a culture don’t meet your definition.

    The main argument for genocide though is, that a whole population is forced to erase their culture.

    “Forced,” but not through killing.

    There’s often a disconnect between first generation immigrants and their kids, who often end up adopting the culture they live in over their home culture through various social pressures. The fact that the US has road signs only in English forces people to learn English, doesn’t it? Are those road signs genocide? If public schools fail to make accommodations in terms of language, if they teach history from a different perspective than what their parents grew up with, is that genocide?

    It’s absurd. What a coincidence that the first “nonviolent genocide” in history happens to come from the US’s chief geopolitical rival. It’s a dilution of the word for political reasons that attempts to put much less bad things on the same level as the mass extermination of a people. The primary reason that genocide is wrong is the violence accociated with it.

    The population of japan could have chosen to ignore the obviously forced statement and continued to believe in their faith. And it seems like they did if shinto is still a thing

    No, they did not. The emperor’s divinity was one aspect of Shinto, and a significant one, but Shinto was never like a monotheistic tradition.