As someone with a modded gameboy that I rarely play I feel attacked. The fun part is modding it, actually playing is just a bonus. I only really play it while traveling, which I haven’t been doing often.

This is a good thing, don’t get me wrong, but reading this is exhausting. Framing it as Israel “failing to prevent a humanitarian disaster” rather than actively committing genocide is such weasely bullshit.

“Terrorism is when you attempt to deliver food to starving children.”

• Dhar@lemmy.ca

Chill with the fedposting. You know you’re not actually anonymous here, right? You’re putting yourself at risk. People have had the FBI knocking on their door for less.

The main character starts the game literally giving himself a traumatic brain injury by drowning himself in alcohol. It’s not really the kind of RPG where you can play a self-insert, the player character is an actual character with his own backstory. Not being able to make good choices because of the player character’s personal trauma and limitations is part of the story that the game is telling.

But bad systems create the incentives. Chalking it up to “bad people doing bad things” is a shallow analysis that does nothing to address the underlying problem. If you replaced all the “bad people” with “good people” you would see the same problems re-emerge due to the perverse incentives created by the profit motive.

extracting rent

That’s their right

lemmy.ml

Have I discovered a rare pro-capitalist user of lemmy.ml?

Even if it were the case that they didn’t want to be there, “just following orders” is not an acceptable excuse for committing a genocide. The morally correct thing to do if you’re compelled to service in the IDF is to refuse and face the consequences, because they cannot be worse than the moral injury of being tasked with the murder of innocent children.

If NYC uses ranked choice voting in the general as well and Cuomo learns from his disaster of a campaign then he might try coalition-building with Eric Adams or others to pull off a win by getting neoliberals and MAGA to gang up on Zohran. It’s a headscratcher for me because I never expect neoliberals to learn from their mistakes, and yet they might actually feel forced to because they never fail to pull out all the stops against progressives, let alone an actual socialist.

Allow me to translate.

I form my worldview on vibes alone and am incapable of thinking for myself. My perception of people is entirely filtered through memes and sensationalist media.

The CCP acts like just because the state owns major enterprises then the workers - through the state - own the means of production. That doesn’t hold up when the state does not adequately represent the will of the workers. Never is this contradiction more clear than when the Chinese state suppresses workers’ attempts to organize on their own terms.

China is communist in the same way that the US is democratic, which is to say that it’s a sham to keep up appearances that is suspended when convenient for the few who hold real power.

Hyperindividualism and car culture explains it all. Americans don’t trust each other (especially not their neighbors) and want to put as much distance between themselves as possible. We’re also mostly NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) and have very strict zoning laws that prevent commercial and residential buildings from coexisting in the same area. This is great for the auto industry because it means you can’t do anything without driving, and they lobby the government to block any attempt to change things.

Our suburbs are liminal spaces that more closely resemble purgatory than actual communities, which is why everyone who grew up in them is at least slightly insane.

This is a small town. We don’t call them villages, we call them towns for some reason.

The word village implies community, and we don’t do that kinda thing in the states.

Take this quiz and see if you can tell the difference between Nazism and Zionism. I bet you can’t.

Capitalists have always repackaged and sold our liberatory art back to us, that isn’t new.

“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Is a quote paraphrased from a saying attributed to Lenin.

The writers are genuine in their messaging, the corpos just don’t care. When someone slips a revolutionary message into the stream of “content,” the appropriate thing to do is to consider it, turn off the TV, and act accordingly.

It would not bode well for the future of discourse if lemmy.world of all places gets shut down for radicalism. Our instance is significantly more radical than lemmy.world. Can you imagine some ecofascist idiot who posted on slrpnk.net a couple times committing a terror attack and getting the instance taken down? I can, which is why this news should be very concerning.

Edit: Just looked through some of the bomber’s comments and their replies and some users even pointed out that his rhetoric was reminiscent of ecofascism. Anti-natalism and ecofascism are ideological siblings. The backlash to this attack is going to catch environmentalist groups in the crossfire, with many environmental activists being accused of having anti-natalist views. Anyone who’s ever advocated for degrowth might get lumped in with them.

The problem is letting the AI digest the information for you. It is impossible to engage in critical thinking when you’re not actually doing the thinking yourself.

How do you publicly let AI do your thinking for you without even a hint of shame or embarrassment?

Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

That’s a whole lot of words to communicate what could be easily described by reframing the concept of tolerance as a social contract rather than a moral precept.

So they took over a building they don’t own, refused to leave, and had a list of demands?

Yeah, sounds like something the police should be called for.

Would you say the same thing about organized sit-ins in segregated buildings during the civil rights movement? Same set of facts, took over a building they didn’t own, refused to leave, had a list of demands. If not, then clearly you believe that if the status quo is untenable and the demands reasonable then the action is justified.

This is peaceful civil disobedience in opposition to an ongoing genocide being broken up by the police state.