@Sodium_nitride
@lemmygrad.mlI was originally skeptical when they introduced genocide Joe as the new jojo (name doesn't even make sense, how is GEJO the same as JOJO) because I thought that an 80 year old man wouldn't be relatable or entertaining.
Turns out, that's the least of his problems.
Don't know if I am preaching to the choir, but with how much libs try to use the trolley problem to support their favorite war criminal, it got me thinking just how cringe utilitarianism is.
Whatever utilitarianism may be in theory, in practice, it just trains people to think like bureaucrats who belive themselves to be impartial observers of society (not true), holding power over the lives of others for the sake of the common good. It's imo a perfect distillation of bourgeois ideology into a theory of ethics. It's a theory of ethics from the pov of a statesman or a capitalist. Only those groups of people have the power and information necessary to actually act in a meaningfully utilitarian manner.
It's also note worthy just how prone to creating false dichotomies and ignoring historical context utilitarians are. Although this might just be the result of the trolley problem being so popular.
I don't know how the fuck this shit started, but I've started to see more and more comparisons between Biden and Lincoln amongst libs for the purposes of vote shaming.
Like these mfs apparently don't realise that Lincoln sided with the abolitionists (in the end) while Biden would be a slave owner in their own analogy!
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Melton%20-%20Written%20Testimony.pdf
The election discourse has become cancerous because it keeps going in circles. This is because liberals have become fixated on the narrative of there being some large bloc of leftists who are going around trying to convince people to not vote. However, this contingent, does not actually exist? Most of the people I have seen take a stance against voting for Biden aren't telling other people to not vote. Some are, but the number of these people is so vanishingly small (compared to the rest of the electorate) that it becomes clear that the election discourse is entirely a waste of time.
Liberals are also really trying hard to convince these people to vote (by berating them online), and it just seems like this is the most idiotic and time wasting strategy possible. These people have negative charisma.
Even if they actually could actually speak persuasively, wouldn't it be far better to target the large number of non-voting centrists/apathetic people rather than leftists who have taken a principled stance (and thus could only be convinced if you knew more about American and world history, which liberals are blissfully unaware of)?
For as much as liberals are fond of accusing leftists of being impotents on a moral high horse, the election memers aren't accomplishing anything either.
I finally managed to convince my lib friend to accept that he may be wrong about tibet (he thinks that the chinese settler colonised tibet), and that I should give him some sources for reading and for him to make up his mind.
However, I don't really know where to start in finding good quality sources that he will trust (he is very distrustful of Chinese sources). Does anybody know any good sources I can use? Our argument revolves around 2 main points
Much appreciated.
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3248493/south-korea-lays-out-us470-billion-plan-build-chipmaking-hub
The area of Pyeongtaek to Yongin is expected to be the largest chip making region in the world, capable of producing 7.7 million wafers monthly by 2030.
The other day, I was arguing with someone israel and Palestine, and they brought up the whole "everybody has done settler colonialism before" trope. While it's an idiotic argument even if true (directly contradicting their whole "rules based international order" sthick), it did get me wondering.
I've assumed up until now that settler colonialism is a phenomena unique to the capitalist phase of history, but how true is that exactly?