AreaSIX

Probably could’ve expressed my thoughts better, but I believe your definition and my thoughts aren’t necessarily opposed. I was clumsily trying to say that DEI as is doesn’t really upset the hierarchies you mentioned, and is therefore not opposed to conservatism. Accepting the premise that in conservatism the rich are deserving of their riches because they are better, my point was that DEI actually works to solidify that class disparity because it’s mostly designed to give the appearance of inclusivity in order to attract clientele from all segments of society, thus increasing the flow of income. If DEI means diversity at the bottom of the corporate structure while maintaining a homogenous owner class at the top, which is my argument, then it’s just a tool to transfer money from the bottom to the top, while expanding the pool of money to take from the bottom through inclusivity. I think I fucked up the argument again, but hope it at least clarifies what I was trying to say a little bit.

You cannot hold conservative beliefs and also be a fan of diversity, equity, or inclusion.

This is the way it’s been in recent US political culture, where everything has somehow turned into identity politics and social markers. But I don’t believe that applies to conservatism in general. Politics has almost always been driven by economic goals, not identity, and DEI has been implemented because it’s been determined to be good for the bottom line. That it’s useful to rile up the base on id-pol in order to get into power doesn’t change that. The owners still only care about profits, and would hire or fire anyone if it was determined that it’d add to the bottom line.

Imagine knowing the power dynamic between a world famous star and a teenage fan, and then blaming the fan. Some people’s moral compass is screwed beyond repair.

Nah, I don’t hate you, you’re not significant enough to me to hate. And whether you want to believe it or not, I do feel sorry that human beings are forced to endure hardships that are imposed on them, like a terminal illness for example.

I just find you to be a bit sad and pathetic, completely unrelated to your self declared illness, which I was unaware of until today and which in any case is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. And you just keep finding new ways of validating that assessment.

I’m done with this conversation, I think I made myself about as clear as I am able to do.

Hey, if you truly are terminally ill in some way, I’m very sorry for that. But also, it’s shameful to retreat and hide behind “I’m gonna die in four years, so you’re a bad person for calling me out on my bullshit” after you’ve been chastising people everywhere. Being terminally ill doesn’t give people a cart blanche to act in any way they want and not get called out for it. If the discourse on Lemmy is too much, you could also stop being a mod, stop acting holier than thou, or stop using Lemmy altogether and enjoy your time offline. Here, you’re not a terminally ill person, you’re flying squid the mod. If you can’t take the heat, you should consider getting out of the kitchen instead of crying foul when you get called out.

Isn’t it odd how people in random threads repeatedly seem to not like you, because of your moderating? To a degree that your name pops up anytime someone wants an example of a shitty mod? If everyone you meet is an asshole, perhaps you’re the asshole? But no, it’s not you that’s out of touch, it’s the children who are wrong.

Who says you’re not allowed to? Regular users don’t have the ability to ban you. But you have the ability to ban users, an ability you abuse regularly with what looks like a pitiable “I am the king of .world” god complex. It’s sad that you seem to lack the bandwidth to understand how you as a mod are different to regular users. But it explains a lot.

And no one is forcing you to reply. We will post wherever we want, and bitch about whatever we want, anywhere we want. You seem to feel like you actually are .world, so go ahead and ban everyone who doesn’t bow down to arbitrary garbage. No wonder no one ever has anything positive to say about you squid, it sucks to suck. Be better.

What ‘leftist’ supports Biden?! The political compass in the US is… Special I guess? There’s no ‘left’ on the mainstream political spectrum in the US as far as I can see. Libs are not leftists by any standard in any country outside of the US. The Dems are to the right of the right coalition in charge of my country right now.

The US WANTS to be in those bases because it gives them a lot of soft power in foreign relationships

I’d say that military bases within European countries is the definition of projecting hard power. If 40 000 soldiers in a military base are called ‘soft power’, what’s hard power then? Nuking the city?

No replies on the holding the door and smiling being the sign of a swindler? That actually sounds like you live in an exceptionally hostile place. I’m swedish, as in people not exactly known for showing a lot of warmth to each other in public, and I always hold the door, and smile at people very often. The smiling part might be somewhat unusual here in Sweden too, but not unusual as in bad or a sign of a swindler. Most people seem to appreciate these behaviors. Either that or I’m absolutely delusional and everyone secretly views me as a swindler ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And you complain about pro Israel accounts getting banned. Literally justifying the murder of children should be banable no matter what county you’re supporting. Despicable behavior that everyone now sadly expects from rabid genocide supporters.

Here I thought I was ancient because it was combat. Seems like there are many of us old farts around here.

“Goddamn it! I don’t know how to express myself unless through anger and personal attacks!”

I agree, while the head of state is the more important and powerful position, the president certainly isn’t exactly powerless and handles the day to day business of government. But calling the leader the Ayatollah is slightly misleading. While it’s a requirement in the constitution that the head of state be an Ayatollah, Ayatollah itself is a religious rank, not a political one. So there are many Ayatollahs around, even more since the revolution as many believe that the rank has become somewhat inflated.

Jesus brother/sister, come down. Most people on Reddit are like most people everywhere, regular normal people with an extra dollop of asshole because they can hide behind a handle online. Many probably don’t know about other alternatives, or find the somewhat convoluted sign up processes to be intimidating. Or they sign up and don’t find the content all that varied or interesting. God knows I’ve been tempted to go back from time to time, but I refuse to use the garbage they call an official app. Drugged up lost causes with an insatiable need to be righteous seems like a somewhat drastic judgement to me. Unless you think that of people in general, in which case yes, they are like people in general.

That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.

What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide?

This is The UN Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide detailing what constitutes a genocide.

Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?

Here’s South Africa’s 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.

The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):

“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”

Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.