• 0 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle




  • It would be more accurate if you said, “This is not about right and wrong (for me).”

    If you say it’s not about right and wrong, dead stop, then you are pledging full faith to the institutions, the very ones we are critiquing.

    Basically, you are dismissing my opinion as misguided, dismissing me as missing the point and I am telling you it was expressed exactly as intended.

    In short, you are arguing on the wrong conceptual meta-level for me to respond without dismissing my own claim. If I take as True that “this isn’t about right and wrong” (it is), then I am setting aside the power I have in a democratic society to say, “Fuck this I’m changing it.” Maybe we’ve just been stuck in gridlock politics, with a ruling class that strips and monetizes every aspect of humanity that the society today doesn’t realize the power citizens wield.

    Not sure. Been fun to think and share thoughts with you though. Thanks for your time and have a nice night.

    An impasse is a perfectly acceptable outcome on a sane platform like Lemmy.


  • It’s a quote of an opinion, so in general I ignore them. I’m usually more interested in distilling ideas constructed with some line of reasoning.

    But I guess we can look at this one. Find it’s essence. Tho it doesn’t seem very deep…

    “Societies with rule of law are dictatorships. How leaders are selected and the existence of fundamental Constitutional rights is not a factor.”

    So in short.

    Having laws at all is a dictatorship.

    Yeah, that is one of the opinions I’d ignore. It’s easy to have that opinion inside the walls of a lawed society.

    Luckily it is valid to respond to an opinion with an opinion, and mine is that I imagine everyone (except the strongest with the most resources) would abandon that perspective as soon as they lived in a world with no laws.




  • “Because what is legal is always right.
    And what is right is always legal.”

    No?

    In a fascist state, your mindset is welcome, “Well they broke the rule, they must pay,” but do you never abstract one more level? Is the rule itself breaking something?

    Those who downvote you say yes. Nuance is important. The rule has two main affects that I see.

    1. Direct effect (the goal) :Publishers maintain a monopoly on bookselling low value books, the structure of their business preventing any competition.

    Okay lets think about #1. Is that good or bad?

    1. Indirect effect : the members of that society now have a restricted access to knowledge.

    Okay lets think about #2. Is that good or bad?

    Being critical in thought enough to recognize the flaws of the first quote is key.





  • I’m 100% not an expert on this, I’m actually stupid, so know that before you read what I write.

    As much as I get what you are saying, the United States has continually expanded the rights of corporations to essentially be… people. So on that they seem to have some legal standing? But then we factor in national security interests, and those override everything.

    Without the national security interests I’d be curious which way this would go, but I don’t expect, “I deserve to spy on your citizens because I have free speech,” to fly…

    So in a way I agree with you and in other ways I disagree with you, in the end… I said nothing, but I did say I am stupid at the top, so really it’s your fault for continuing to read this far.

    At the very least it’s gonna be interesting. I doubt it will spark any introspection for politicians to think, “Hm, maybe we shouldn’t have given corporations more rights than people…” Nope. Poison the waters. Contaminate the soil. Torture the animals. Burn the sky. Cook all of humanity.

    But hey, line go up.




  • stembolts@programming.devtoTechnology@lemmy.worldYouTube threatens Rossmann
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Ah, he’s emotional. People shouldn’t be outwardly emotional, especially men. Otherwise I can’t absorb the content of their message. /s

    Joke aside, did you have a point? One could alternatively say that he’s passionate about the fights he chooses. Should we not all aspire to be passionate about the fights we choose?

    I suppose I’m not making the connection with what this comment has to do with the content of the video. At which timestamp do you feel he was emotional and how do you feel it effected the overall message?