Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post
Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post
If the nation is truly democratic, then yes, though a caveat is that sometimes new edge cases appear that force the laws to change.
You’d be a moron to think you’re more competent and more ethical than the collective will of the people.
So vox populi is always more ethical than any individual according to your philosophy?
Take it a step further: an individual’s reality doesn’t even exist.
The world you see is a model built upon external stimuli but those stimuli are capable of being false or wrong, therefor the only viable method of observing the world outside of the self is via repeated experimentation and verification with peers. I place literally zero value on an individual’s account of anything.
But yes, to answer your question in plain English, I think the only way to achieve the highest amount of satisfaction for the most people while abstaining from harm for all people is via a perfect and equal democracy. Every other method to approach ethics will fail to promote widespread wellbeing while avoiding harm. In fact, if an individual is only concerned with themselves, due to a lack of social contract or other requirement, then they will demonstrably throughout history commit horrible crimes to enrich their own life.
Indeed, landlords are quite deplorable. I wonder what the people will do about them?
Mao ZeDong, Trump, Elon Musk, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un/Jong-Il/Il-Sung, Maduro, Bolsanaro, the Kochs, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, etc.
Least coherent list in world history.
lmfao
Willfully ignoring so hard he forgets the context for which the implication stands upon.
No, the implication makes no sense. Mao ZeDong, while he certainly was against killing landlords, quite famously so, still did not prosecute those that did because he understood the pain caused by the existence of the capital class, he lived it after all. Same with Xi, though he’s softer. Maduro also quite famously also went against landlords and other sources of mass suffering. So did Stalin.
Trump is a landlord, Hitler loved the concept of landlords and privatized a large majority of socialist Weimar, the Kochs are rent seekers, Putin is a rent seeker, Bolsanaro, famously is a rent seeker and tried privatizing brazil…
Lumping these individuals together in any list that is not ‘Men who lived’ is as silly as any possible list that includes Eva Braun, Hillary Clinton, and Malala.
You are engaging with an unserious person and I recommend treating them as such
Mao killed those landlords right before he starved millions for shits and giggles, just like Trump and Musk killed millions of children after Xi helped him get reelected.
Half that list go to great lengths to prevent themselves from being offed on a daily if not hourly basis.
Mao’s regime has survived to today. Stalin died of heart disease.
I think you missed my point. It sounds like to me that you are arguing that “we the people” so to speak are supposed to be doing things to change society for the better by acting as a collective fire break, and people like Musk and Mao are examples of us not doing enough?
The person you responded to is making the point that people don’t rise up to correct certain problems in society (as an example of where the will of the people regardless of lip service is not carried out), and your answer is to provide a list of people who didn’t/haven’t died by the will of the people and who go out of their way (or did) to prevent the will of the people from being actualized.
I’m also inclined to think, after reading this entire comment thread that you might be barking of the wrong tree because both arguments have merit.
A lot of people at one time thought it was perfectly fine to own slaves. To perform public executions. To remove children from their parents to Catholicize and colonise them.
There are a lot of examples in history where most people have agreed to some truly horrific and entirely unethical stuff because it benefitted them personally regardless of the detriment to others, especially minorities.
On the other hand I do agree that change needs momentum and that needs people. No one person is an army, and no ethical change happens without that time and momentum made up of people.
Fuck, you Tankies sure like to ramble. It’s like you forget you’ve already lost all credibility before you post full page comments.
The “collective will of the people” is pretty sure that all our earthly thoughts and actions are being judged by a divine being. An idea being popular does not make it right.
A plurality isn’t a perfect democracy, though, is it? A perfect democracy dictates the earth is between 28% and 53% that, 14% managed by a large and expansive indian pantheon, and 32% assorted others. Nobody’s belief is above the rest, that’s what makes it an equal and perfect democracy.
Dog, you sound like you’d be supporting slaveholders in the 1800s because that’s what the majority decided was best. Between that and your Philosophy 101 reply to the other guy I can’t take you seriously.
Representative democracy, which is once again not a true perfect utopian democracy, banned slavery and the slavers attempted to secede from the union and make their own nations as a result, and then the representative democracy went to war in order to free the slaves.
Your ass sounds more like the secessionists, to me.
So you support the maoist executions of landlords right?
Mao was a dictator who killed everyone who opposed him, and millions who didn’t, a seed planted by the equally brutal and evil USSR. Nothing about China then or now is democratic in any way, shape, or form. Fuck off, Red Fascist.
You’ll be shocked to learn then that Mao’s complaint about the cultural revolution was that it gave far too much power to the people and led to excesses. Mao wasn’t directing every people’s tribunal to execute landlords, the people did that because they hated their oppressors and were given the authority to punish them. Mao considered them too radical in the end.
Red fascist revisionists at it again, you gonna flip flop again next week?
Listen I knew who you were and what position you would take before I ever said anything. Idk where you think I’m flip flopping though. I consider the cultural revolution a mistake and I’m not a huge fan of Mao’s policy towards the end of his life. I just think it’s funny how you support the people’s will until the people start killing their oppressors. Makes me think you only support popular consensus until it makes you personally uncomfortable and I think that’s lame.
I don’t even have to read your red fascist comment to know you’re a cuck simping for your big strong leaders.
Beautiful, it brings a tear to the eye.
Looks like we don’t need the Bill of Rights, or any other rights laid out in the law, then. It just interferes with pure democracy. Let’s go change the Constitution, boys! Those “rights” are interfering with our very ethical need to enslave people.
Ah yeah like that one time when the people they all voted to take away their own rights, yeah, we all remember that. /s
The closest thing to what you’re talking about was the rise of Nazi Germany, which, and this is true, was a fascism resulting of a flawed democracy.
American slaves came from outside America. Places like Africa. Africans don’t get to vote in America.
First of all, the USA is not a perfect ideal democracy. It’s actually really low on the index.
Fucking Tankies must hear the wildest propaganda and really believe it. Are you from North Korea, mate?
Hi @FiniteBanjo@feddit.online, would you mind editing this comment to point out that you are referring to African Americans? I think a chain of midunderstandings in this thread are causing people to think your comment was meant to be racist. Looking through your posting history, I don’t think that was your intent.
For anyone else that is coming across this thread, here is my interpretation of what happened:
If some people can somehow mental gymnastics their way from XiLee talking about US Politics and saying “Africans don’t vote” to literal Africans living in Africa not having the ability to vote in the USA (which would still be wrong even if that were the case, any naturalized citizen can vote regardless of birth location) then I don’t think any amount of explaining will help that person. That person is likely some Tankie’s alt account, I can hardly believe such a moron could exist, it takes powerful willful ignorance to make that leap. It’s a complete nonsequitur.
Reported you for blatant racism.
If you abuse the reporting feature one more time, you’re out of here.
Calling you a tankie is not racism. If you don’t know what racism is: look. it. up.
I thought when I explained the problem, you’d remove the racist comment the next time you logged on, and probably give FiniteBanjo some penalty similar to the one I was threatened with.
I considered reporting it again with more details so that maybe another mod would remove it, but since I was threatened about that, I’m reluctant to do so.
I reported it because that comment goes against the rules of the entire platform, and even if my report was initially misunderstood, I don’t think we should leave racist comments up.
Just to recap the racism, I said that Africans couldn’t vote in America and that’s why democracy wouldn’t keep them from being enslaved, and FiniteBanjo responded with a picture of the Obamas, saying that they were Africans voting in America. There’s no way that they thought the subject was African Americans. It was African slaves. And they posted a picture of a person who was repeatedly falsely accused of being born in Africa. It’s blatant racism.
I also reported your blatantly racist, and also your antidemocracy, comments expecting them to be removed.
The comment they reported is blatantly racist. It doesn’t have anything to do with the commenter (quite disingenuously, imo) calling them a tankie. I struggle to understand how you interpreted this as abuse of the report feature.
Then I would strongly suggest everyone stop using the default buttons the apps supply, and actually explain their rationale for reporting someone. It’s rule 8.
This means you too @BillyClark@piefed.social.
You don’t think using a picture of the Obamas as an example of “Africans” voting in America is racist??? They aren’t Africans. They are Americans with African heritage, sometimes called African Americans, but never just “Africans.”
That’s the racism part, not the tankie part.
Edit: Not to mention the whole birther movement, which is inherently racist, and which anybody would strongly suspect is the reason he picked Obama instead of anybody else.
Okay mr “African’s don’t get to vote in America” lmfao