Somebody on Lemmy a while back asked about the phrase, “the cruelty is the point,” and whether it was true and fair. Well, here’s the evidence: The point is not a net gain on fare collections.
The fact that the numbers are public and they keep doing it proves it: The cruelty is the point.
First thing I thought of was the “Elementary School Musical” episode of South Park.
Yeah, except for the cnidarians, which are weird in more than just name. Oral vs. anal? No difference for them!
Where this analogy falls apart is in the implicit assumption that this is just a one-off situation. (I mean, most people only have two parents.)
What happens when it’s an iterative phenomenon? (Politics is an ongoing thing.) Then, the situation in the analogy turns into the classic “negotiating with terrorists” scenario. The received wisdom is that one should never negotiate with terrorists, because once they learn that terrorism works they’ll do it again.
Maybe make it cousins. Do you choose the option whereby two cousins die, or just one. What if choosing just one now increases the danger of more dying later?
Oh Lord… 😔
Who will they tip over the side next?
Perhaps a better, real-world example is that this moral calculus says that the Democrats should abandon trans people and trans issues. The logic is inescapable: Trans issues turn away a lot of voters, and it’s a really strong talking point for the other party. If they win, the Democrats could protect the LGB community, and women’s rights.
Surely it’s better to protect the LGB community and women’s rights, but not trans people, than to protect none of them, right?
(NB: This is rhetorical. I don’t believe it.)
Abortion rights initiatives won in 7 out of 10 states where they were on the ballot.
Sometimes you do it the hard way to send a message.
At best, “support our troops” was a version of that dumbass magical thinking that, in earlier times, held that the U.S. lost in Vietnam because Americans didn’t clap for Tinkerbell, err, I mean, support the war. Mostly, it was a thought-terminating cliché.
Yeah, as you rightly point out, it was never about the soldiers themselves.
It’s not accelerationism at all! It’s fatalism.
Accelerationism is, “It has to get worse before it can get better.”
My point here is, “The system that only allows for getting worse will never get better.”
A big issue with this approach: The United States is not a law of nature; it doesn’t have to exist. The system may only allow two options, but it does not guarantee that either one of those options will keep the system viable. Reduced harm is still harm, and at some point we needed to stop doing it.
Not believable; Epstein died over 5 years ago. All the girls in that book are way too old for Gaetz by now.
Dammit, I came up with a Halloween costume too late. The plan would’ve been to dress up as a ‘like’ button, and get drunk.
Parents? My friend volunteered as a poll worker on the University campus here. At his location, 25% of the students voted for the orange fascist.
It’s the perennial coordination problem. Consider these truths: 1. Anybody who stands up alone will get viciously hammered down. 2. If a large number of people stand up together, they can make a difference. 3. People have to trust others to stand up with them, otherwise see #1.
How do we organize a large crowd of people that trust each other without the people in power catching wind of it and viciously hammering down the organizers? It sure would help to have some support from people already in positions of power…
Now, now, remember correlation is not causation. Maybe it’s not the unintuitive design; maybe a disproportionate number of idiots buy Teslas?
Right, and this isn’t rhetorical combat. You are correct, and I was continuing the train of thought.
“The court’s three conservative justices have accused the liberals of playing politics with abortion.”
It is to laugh!
Yep, interesting how they’re proud of America, they just hate all of the people and things in it.
I doubt it. Where’s the data?