this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
207 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13535 readers
1085 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No. It is his privilege to abandon ideals at the whims of capital.

[–] BabyTurtles@hexbear.net -1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Would you put your children in front of a firing squad just to say "Well I at least stand firm in my ideals"?

[–] REgon@hexbear.net 26 points 1 week ago

You are here presenting the situation as if it was a sudden development, rather than a known risk from the start. You are also presenting it as a definite certainty.
Neither of these presentations are correct.

[–] ElChapoDeChapo@hexbear.net 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If he believed in his ideals he would've finished this months ago and actually arrested trump instead of using it as a campaign talking point then giving up

[–] ThermonuclearEgg@hexbear.net 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Time it on the day of his withdrawal for maximum effect.

I will no longer be seeking reelection, which leaves me free to do what the QAnon people always wanted — military tribunal time! biden-rember

[–] LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA@hexbear.net 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My child is already in danger due to the dictatorship of capital. I don't get the luxury or privilege of making a minor work decision to save them.

[–] BabyTurtles@hexbear.net 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You neatly sidestepped the question. Capitol puts everyone in danger, that isn't special. Would you do the special honors of placing your child in front of a firing squad if it meant you could say that you stood firm in your ideals?

[–] REgon@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And you are sidestepping multiple responses highlighting the flaws in your presented argument

[–] BabyTurtles@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm ignoring them because aren't good faith? I didn't say "Jack Smith is literally in this situation", I'm just pointing out how easy it is for armchair revolutionaries to snear from the sidelines when it's not their necks on the line.

[–] REgon@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That you dislike an answer does not make it bad faith

[–] BabyTurtles@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I found yours, yours is just like gibberish.

You are here presenting the situation as if it was a sudden development, rather than a known risk from the start. You are also presenting it as a definite certainty. Neither of these presentations are correct.

No, risk is a spectrum, like everything. The level of risk changes based on the situation. Jack found it to be an acceptable level of risk, the situation changed, the risk got higher, and it was no longer acceptable to him.

I was presenting a hypothetical situation where risk was the absolute maximum because I want people to use their heads and think about it, and maybe break out of the snearing circlejerk bubble for a second.

[–] REgon@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

Talk about bad faith lol

Yes

Now go touch grass

[–] Hexboare@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

I'm not a war crimes prosecutor? Pretty sure you're doing that by taking the job