Covid bereaved - people who lost loved ones to COVID
angered by - the previous noun is angry because of the following part of the sentence
Badenoch’s - a person, possessive
‘insulting’ - you know this one
Partygate remarks - comments she made about Boris Johnson’s government’s behaviour during lockdown, the scandal known informally as “partygate”
Day 1, babyyyyy
There’s only really one big building society in the UK, which is Nationwide, but they’re awesome
“Everything is politics” - Thomas Mann
The content of the article
I’m such a dunce, I didn’t spot your username 🤦
Thought I was asking a db0 random, not the NaN himself
Slightly off topic, is db0 one of the anarchist instances you’re referring to? I know it’s a generally leftist instance, but don’t know much more detail than that
Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different
Left your reading comprehension at home?
The argument I was supporting is that you don’t have carte blanche to do whatever you want to intolerant people. The argument I am making is that you have a moral obligation to rely on the law first because that IS the social contract. Not because the law would punish you for it.
Not all police are the same everywhere, but regardless, you can’t just stab people who are being racist.
But there’s an important difference between allowing intolerance, and letting the legal system be the arbiter of how it should be disallowed.
Vigilante justice not only deprives the perpetrator of their right to a fair trial and proportionate punishment (yes, being intolerant does not deprive you of your human rights) but also denies the victims their right to see the perpetrator receive justice.
YOU do not get to be the arbiter of justice, just because you think someone is a terrible person. Maybe they’re mentally ill. Maybe they have dementia. Maybe they’re also a victim of abuse.
Document the incident, protect and comfort the victim, contact the police and allow actual justice to take place.
Because in your scenario they are not a threat of imminent violence, and by being a vigilante you prevent society from enforcing consequences in the way the social contract defines - through the justice system.
Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different.
Lula Brazil is very different from bolsonaro Brazil
Let’s go look at your comment history and check, shall we?
Defending yourself and launching invasions or orchestrating soldiers are two different things
It’s not defending yourself if you have an army! What a great take 👍
it sounds like the government is giving out plans and commanding the army. The government of ukraine and people from ukraine are two different things. When people ask what’s the alternative to send billions to the ukrainian government what they need to understand is that people can defend themself even without an authority on top of them playing war games with soldiers and possibly forcing conscript to go on missions
Oh, why did Ukraine never consider magically winning the war by sheer willpower instead of this “having an army” nonsense, smart!
I’m not twisting anything. Context matters, and the context of your post was you throwing a tantrum after around 10 different Lemmy users calling out your bad takes.
If you believe not being drafted blah blah blah
That’s not what I said at all, mere moments after you accused me of “twisting” what you said. What I said, louder for the people in the back is BEING UNABLE TO FIGHT BACK IN THE ENEMY’S TERRITORY, BEING DISALLOWED TO RECEIVE FOREIGN AID AND BEING DISALLOWED TO FORM AN ACTUAL ARMY is the equivalent of rolling over and dying.
The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you’ve asked here doesn’t match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to “defend themselves”.
There’s a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.
The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.
From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”
Holy moly
Especially since their one example is Caesar, who lived in a time when basically everyone was gay!
Edit: and about 1.5 thousand years before capitalism was invented
The Churchill example I think demonstrates the OP’s misunderstanding, in that all of them did terrible things/were horrible people, but excelled at being effective leaders in the context they were in.
Churchill was a terrible human being, racist, abrasive, homophobic, a drunk etc etc. But he was an outstanding wartime prime minister, because he was a talented war strategist, a compelling speaker and, frankly, had enormous balls.
We can go back and try and just classify every human into the good/bad boxes, but that reduces away all the details that make them so interesting.
It wasn’t for him, but for those who were named after him it was used to symbolise that they - like Caesar - were one of “the greats”
Our system is fucking broken - too many people cannot get the care they need, or they go into debt to get it. It needs to be fixed.
Reading comprehension
Well, depending on how they’re elected - these sorts of systems can be democratic and effective, but they have to be designed well
Doing something like the staggered terms used in the US senate is a pretty good way of reducing that sort of effect