You are being disingenuous lol

More like smarmy, but yes, not literal.

Why would tankies be in shambles? They love genocide and helping fascists. This is basically a motivational poster for them.

“Oh no, the mean ol’ social fascists promised to have elections instead of allowing a government by force of arms like the Soviet Party Line wanted, how terrible”

Fascist scum like you aren’t welcome here.

At the moment, no, because Bernie or another progressive Democrat isn’t in the spotlight.

If Bernie or another progressive took Biden’s place?

I’m not entirely discounting the idea that the American people could surprise me. But talking to ordinary voters, I’m not exactly filled with hope that there’s a secret cabal of super-compassionate left wing votes waiting to be activated by the right candidate. In fact, I’m filled with the suspicion that Bernie or another progressive Dem would be in the same spot, or worse, as Biden is currently.

And regardless of whether a progressive would perform better electorally, the fact remains that Trump is not a valid alternative to anyone with any hint of foresight.

Bursting with joy

Ernest said he was handing over the reigns to someone else soon. I’d like to give them a chance before I bail on Kbin. I really like Kbin.

I’m gonna give Kbin a little while longer to get its shit together, but if need be, I’ll swap to Lemmy.world in the near future.

Cool, yeah, let’s ‘teach them a lesson’ by going deeper into fascism, that really worked the past ten times we’ve done it.

Ah, yes, remember how the Social Democrats called the Communists ‘social fascists’ and refused to work with them?

Oh, wait, sorry, I got it reversed, my bad.

Well, they ran out of war machines too

Flak, with an L.

I only clarify because in a situation where every able body is fighting you’ve already lost, there needs to be logistics, maintaining utilities, growing food, etc

Conscription is actually a way to ensure that. In the Ukrainian War, as well as at least the US during WW2 (I’m less familiar with other countries’ conscription systems during WW2), conscription is used to prioritize those with skills which are not economically vital during wartime - during WW2, even, some skilled workers weren’t even allowed to volunteer, much less be conscripted, for military service.

Blink and you’ll miss it!

That’s the German Empire. The Weimar Republic was an unstable shithole run by a revolving series of coalitions that ended with ze Nazis.

Unfortunately, Getty Images is the closest thing I have to a source

I’m sorry, I can’t take you seriously after this analogy.

Because it casts doubt on whether a fear-based justification for immoral behavior is valid?

Feel free to believe I’m an evil person who supports genocide because I won’t allow my underage daughter to die in a war. That’s fine.

In the discussion you literally posited that any cost, including genocide, was worth not letting your daughter (implicitly, as I clearly outlined, not when she was underaged) die in a war. I don’t know what you call that except conditional support for genocide. Most people, I think, would have some sort of moral issue with the cost being ‘literal genocide’.

Just bear that in mind when you agree with me on any other position I hold on any other issue that you are agreeing with someone who also is an evil genocide supporter, so you might want to think about whether or not it’s a good idea after all.

The fuck? That’s some “Hitler liked dogs too - are you SURE you like dogs?”

Even if your positions were 99% evil and 1% good, that doesn’t make the 1% good no longer worth agreeing with. And in all likelihood, it’s probably closer to the reverse. I don’t know why you feel that people can’t defend evil positions unless their entire worldview is evil.

Anyway, you implying you’re not being uncivil is just silly and I think we should just end this before you end up taking a break from this community.

Uh-huh. It’s just silly, because you made the accusation that I called you and not the position you were defending evil, and after it was pointed out that I quite clearly stated that the position you were defending was evil, you lost the ground you were making threats on. But ban me if you like. It would be terrible if someone thought that allowing genocide was evil.

I couldn’t force my adult daughter to flee with me, so I think it would be obvious that I was talking about her as a child.

You couldn’t ‘force’ your daughter to flee with you now, at 14, if the state was trying to keep her for conscription purposes, as the only way you can ‘force’ her now is either by physical force (which would not be viable over fleeing an entire country unless you live a very short trunk ride to the border) or by the coercive apparatus of the state (ie filing a missing persons’ report if she runs off).

Look, I get that you currently think that I support genocide because, as a parent whose biggest fear in life is his child dying would do anything to stop that from happening, but I think you need to take a step back and a deep breath and think about what I’m saying here and what you expect of me.

I expect that “Literally anything and everything” be off the table as an acceptable sacrifice.

Let’s say your biggest fear in the world was being in the room with a dog and someone started telling you that if you didn’t get in a room with a dog, you held an evil genocide-supporting position?

It’s good that you bring up fear of dogs - I have very severe arachnophobia. I can’t stay in the same room as a spider, no matter how harmless. I can’t even look at a spider, real, photographed, or drawn, without panicking. If I said that ANY cost was worth me not having to go into a room full of spiders from floor to ceiling, and someone pointed out “What about an actual and serious risk of genocide being committed because you didn’t”, for me to hold that any cost was worth me not going into that room would be evil and in support of genocide, without a doubt.

I can’t not be terrified of something that terrifies me.

This is true.

I can’t not do whatever is in my power to stop the thing that terrifies me from happening.

So by your argument, if someone feared being poor, more than anything in the world, they would be helpless to stop themselves from stepping on anyone and causing any amount of mass deaths in pursuit of remaining rich, and it would not be alright for anyone to call them evil for that?

After all, preservation of one’s own wellbeing transcends not only species but kingdoms.

Good for you if you can, I don’t have that sort of bravery and I would suggest that most people do not have that sort of bravery or there wouldn’t be things like therapy for irrational phobias.

I would say most people don’t make apologia for their phobias.

Sorry… I have no idea what you mean by ‘inaction.’ I told you the action I would take- I would flee before my daughter was an adult.

And you don’t see how fleeing necessarily implies inaction on matters of the preservation or sacrifice of the lives of others?

But you also seem to have some idea in your head that if my daughter were an adult, I would tie her down and put her in the basement if she wanted to go back and fight rather than let her make her own decisions.

Perhaps you can point out where I said that.

But no, I will not allow my underage daughter to fight in a war and I will do anything I can to stop my greatest fear from happening.

Here’s what you said originally:

I’m too old and too sick to ever be called up to fight unless it’s hopeless. But I have a 14-year-old daughter and I see no reason for the modern U.S. military to keep its “women can’t be drafted” policy in such a situation. I can’t lose her. My biggest fear, one I have nightmares about, is outliving her. Even if I was super patriotic, I don’t think I’d risk her being forced to fight. I would flee.

In order for both claims to grok, your original statement would need to have implied that the US military abolishing its “women can’t be drafted” policy to ALSO add a “And we’re drafting underage kids now” despite nothing else suggesting that, AND that risking her being forced to fight and the fear of outliving her is only valid so long as she’s underage AND unwilling, despite nothing else suggesting that, AND that argument being put forth being entirely irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is of people of conscription age fleeing, AND that argument being irrelevant to the comment you were originally responding to, being about someone’s conscription-eligible kids being called up and them fleeing because of that.

If you have the ability to overcome your greatest fear, good for you. I do not claim to have anywhere near that level of bravery. And if lacking bravery is evil, I guess I’m evil. But it’s an inherent evil I have no control over. Wouldn’t that make it a mental illness rather than an ethical violation?

Oh, please. That argument can easily posit that, since we live in a deterministic universe, nothing is an ethical violation, because we have no control over our own actions.

Also, since you wanted it all in one comment chain with regards to your incivility and ‘calling people evil’ claim:

Here’s what I said

If your argument isn’t that saving your child under these circumstances is moral, what you’re saying then, is that you recognize full well that what you’re proposing, since it is seemingly entirely without limits, is unforgivably evil, but you’re 100% okay with it anyway and have no interest in examining or questioning it.

Is saying that an argument or position is evil now unacceptable, so long as someone holds that position or argument?

You can get as angry at me as you like, but no, you do not get to call people names. This is stated in the sidebar.

Here’s what I said

If your argument isn’t that saving your child under these circumstances is moral, what you’re saying then, is that you recognize full well that what you’re proposing, since it is seemingly entirely without limits, is unforgivably evil, but you’re 100% okay with it anyway and have no interest in examining or questioning it.

Is saying that an argument or position is evil now unacceptable, so long as someone holds that position or argument?

An evil person can’t only be evil on one position after all,

Fucking what

: Also, I seriously doubt you never do anything out of self-interest and only spend your life altruistically, which is what you are essentially berating me for not doing.

Because… I say that… there should be SOME kind of moral limit to what you would do to prevent risk from someone close to you?

Because I say that, I’m demanding you live your life 100% altruistically?

Also, I would suggest that I do not have the moral right to sacrifice anyone’s life but my own, related to me or not.

And where does inaction fit into that paradigm?