you’ve been provided evidence of reagan’s attitude on the aids pandemic
you just haven’t addressed it because it’s easier to pretend it hasn’t been provided than confront the fact that gop daddy might not have been the second coming of christ
we could argue until we were both blue in the face and your position would still be that because he didn’t literally crack out a fortnite dance that it doesn’t really count as cheering and that therefore he was as sympathetic as it was possible to be
the fact is he abused his position to cause more gay people afflicted by HIV to die than had to, and entirely because it suited him to do so
I don’t think “He was just indifferent towards the death of entire sectors of the population based on their sexual identity” is the solid refutation you think it is
He was in a position of power to ease the suffering of victims of a pandemic. He didn’t act until he couldn’t avoid it anymore. It doesn’t matter if his intent was apathy or hatred. His actions are what matters and for the leader of a nation to refuse to act on a public health crisis is abhorrent and inexcusable behavior.
Flip side, it would be real nice if the regressive right hadn’t systematically assassinated every left leaning leader through the 70s, and then used public policy to murder thousands of other “undesirables,” and then come in and tone police and try to use civility to circumvent criticism.
Michael Knowles is responsible for that quote. However it’s a very common mainstream right wing tactic to say things in the same spirit of “transgenderism must be eradicated” stopping just shy of blatant calls to violence or genocide. Here’s a full breakdown of this tactic using this exact quote. Here’s what it looks like when you take this line of reasoning to it’s full conclusion. Here’s what genocide actually means since it’s often just thought to be mass murder, which is inaccurate. Here’s an example of a US state seeking to enable a form of trans genocide. Here’s a breakdown of 37 US states taking steps towards trans genocide. Here’s an example of Jordan Peterson engaging in blood libel a tactic largely used against Jews that has been applied to other marginalized groups to dehumanize them. A tactic popular among Nazis. There’s plenty of examples of right wing pundits and politicians making thinly veiled endorsements of trans genocide out there if you look for them and are willing to recognize their dog-whistling for what it is
Trans people don’t find? Fit? I’m assuming fit. cultural genocide refers to the erasure of a groups cultural identity. Which absolutely fits their current situation.
I never said they were currently victims of genocide, but we are not far off from it at all. The bills regarding children and hormones are to cause enforced detransitioning. If you’re broader with your definition of genocide, and there’s good reason to be; these bills if passed and enforced, could reasonably be considered acts of genocide.
SB 254 was the bill from Florida I linked in my above comment was an example of the more rigid definition of genocide. It would allow children to be forcibly moved to Florida into the custody of their parent who lives there. A state that recently banned gender affirming care (hormones), relaxed death penalty restrictions, and a separate bill that allows for the death penalty of child sexual assault. An act thag the right wing is more than happy to accuse trans people of.
Just because it isn’t happening right now doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious threat to a very marginalized community. If you’d read that bit about dog-whistling or watched the video linked on Michael Knowles, you’d know that politicians dont have to say the quiet part out loud. They’re able to communicate their position through coded language and apeals to the more extremist demographics in their party. Desantis is running almost exclusively on an “anti-woke” platform. A part of that platform is pushing anti-trans sentiment and legislation. Trump has included gutting trans rights as a part of his platform. Their intent is clear.
Peterson and Knowles both have a clear and obvious effect on political discourse in the US. Particularly about things like LGBT rights, racism, misogyny and plenty of other hot button topics right now. Their part in all of this is obvious
I mean… Reagan not only cheered on the death of LGBTQ+ people, he actively caused many of those deaths because of his policy decisions during the AIDS crisis.
Civility is out the window. But it was Reagan who threw it.
His administration, and his press secretary, used to refer to AIDS as “the gay plague” that only affected “fairies”. And because it only affected the undesirables, they dragged their feet on addressing the issue. Reagan’s actions were genocidal.
I find that a fundamentally ridiculous point of view, that human life is something so valuable that, paradoxically, no amount of human lives ended could ever justify wishing death on someone, but props for consistency, I guess.
That presumes that wishing for someone’s death dehumanizes them.
If Hitler had been captured, what would killing him have done? I am against the death penalty as well.
Created an example and a precedent that rulership is not a shield against punishment? Removed a vile human being from existence? Avenged the literal millions of helpless innocents he ordered slaughtered?
Just wish for a solution to the problem,
Death is often a viable solution. Oftentimes more viable than the alternatives.
Hello, Trolley
Well hello, Trolley
It’s so nice to have you back where you belong…
I think it’s fine to wish that no one has to die, ever. It’s expected to wish that no one ever gets murdered, or eaten by wild tigers, or starves to death in the midst of plenty.
You can let your trolley run over and kill six people, or you can divert to a siding and kill a single person. And that single person is also Hitler in 1932, and instead of six people it’s six million. Or, rather, 11 million total victims of the camps. Or around 80 million deaths in total.
If we could, for the purposes of the thought experiment, save 80 million lives by killing Hitler in 1932, would killing Hitler be a moral act? Is it mandatory, meaning that choosing not to kill Hitler, knowing for certain what was about to happen, would be an immoral act?
The surgeon problem is a fun inversion of the trolley. You have Hitler on the operating table, and the only way you can save his life is to harvest the organs from six otherwise healthy patients. You have to kill six random people so that 1932 Hitler can love and go about his business with WWII and the holocaust. Except instead of six people, it’s 80 million. You can see it’s the exact same dilemma as the trolley problem but made more - forgive me - visceral.
If we don’t high five the surgeon who chooses to let 1932 Hitler die rather than harvesting the organs from 80 million people, it’s only because the decision is so obvious that it doesn’t even seem to need congratulations. It’s not that we’re avoiding celebrating because we would have preferred a scenario where you are a vampire and could hypnotize Hitler to give up politics and return to art school, and then fly around the world hypnotizing the other world leaders to not punish the German people over the decisions made by their government. You could hypnotize US leadership to let Japan pursue economic development, and hypnotize Japanese leadership to be a liberal democracy rather than a militarized autocracy. But those scenarios don’t seem appropriately serious enough for the discussion.
The thing is that you can’t agree to disagree with a Hitler. James Baldwin wrote
We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.
We can disagree on tax policy and agree to debate and take it to the court of public opinion.
When people talk about the ethics of murdering Hitler, it’s not about tax policy.
if you cheer the end of a war because a bomb was dropped on somebody’s head, you’re cheering the fact that a bomb was dropped on that person’s head, whether you realise it or not
deleted by creator
Thick irony when talking about the guy who quite literally cheered as AIDS wreaked havoc on gay people
deleted by creator
guys.
Guys.
GUYS!
Reagan didn’t literally text me the party popper emoji when freddie mercury died so he must be a friend to the lgbt spectrum
deleted by creator
you’ve been provided evidence of reagan’s attitude on the aids pandemic
you just haven’t addressed it because it’s easier to pretend it hasn’t been provided than confront the fact that gop daddy might not have been the second coming of christ
deleted by creator
we could argue until we were both blue in the face and your position would still be that because he didn’t literally crack out a fortnite dance that it doesn’t really count as cheering and that therefore he was as sympathetic as it was possible to be
the fact is he abused his position to cause more gay people afflicted by HIV to die than had to, and entirely because it suited him to do so
deleted by creator
I don’t think “He was just indifferent towards the death of entire sectors of the population based on their sexual identity” is the solid refutation you think it is
He was in a position of power to ease the suffering of victims of a pandemic. He didn’t act until he couldn’t avoid it anymore. It doesn’t matter if his intent was apathy or hatred. His actions are what matters and for the leader of a nation to refuse to act on a public health crisis is abhorrent and inexcusable behavior.
deleted by creator
“Cheered” doesn’t necessarily mean getting up and doing a cheerleader dance while yelling. It can also mean encouraged.
Flip side, it would be real nice if the regressive right hadn’t systematically assassinated every left leaning leader through the 70s, and then used public policy to murder thousands of other “undesirables,” and then come in and tone police and try to use civility to circumvent criticism.
We can as soon as “the other side” stops calling for our extermination.
deleted by creator
Idk how to take “Transgenderism must be eradicated” other than as a statement of extermination or destruction of an identity as their goal.
deleted by creator
Michael Knowles is responsible for that quote. However it’s a very common mainstream right wing tactic to say things in the same spirit of “transgenderism must be eradicated” stopping just shy of blatant calls to violence or genocide. Here’s a full breakdown of this tactic using this exact quote. Here’s what it looks like when you take this line of reasoning to it’s full conclusion. Here’s what genocide actually means since it’s often just thought to be mass murder, which is inaccurate. Here’s an example of a US state seeking to enable a form of trans genocide. Here’s a breakdown of 37 US states taking steps towards trans genocide. Here’s an example of Jordan Peterson engaging in blood libel a tactic largely used against Jews that has been applied to other marginalized groups to dehumanize them. A tactic popular among Nazis. There’s plenty of examples of right wing pundits and politicians making thinly veiled endorsements of trans genocide out there if you look for them and are willing to recognize their dog-whistling for what it is
deleted by creator
Trans people don’t find? Fit? I’m assuming fit. cultural genocide refers to the erasure of a groups cultural identity. Which absolutely fits their current situation.
I never said they were currently victims of genocide, but we are not far off from it at all. The bills regarding children and hormones are to cause enforced detransitioning. If you’re broader with your definition of genocide, and there’s good reason to be; these bills if passed and enforced, could reasonably be considered acts of genocide.
SB 254 was the bill from Florida I linked in my above comment was an example of the more rigid definition of genocide. It would allow children to be forcibly moved to Florida into the custody of their parent who lives there. A state that recently banned gender affirming care (hormones), relaxed death penalty restrictions, and a separate bill that allows for the death penalty of child sexual assault. An act thag the right wing is more than happy to accuse trans people of.
Just because it isn’t happening right now doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious threat to a very marginalized community. If you’d read that bit about dog-whistling or watched the video linked on Michael Knowles, you’d know that politicians dont have to say the quiet part out loud. They’re able to communicate their position through coded language and apeals to the more extremist demographics in their party. Desantis is running almost exclusively on an “anti-woke” platform. A part of that platform is pushing anti-trans sentiment and legislation. Trump has included gutting trans rights as a part of his platform. Their intent is clear.
Peterson and Knowles both have a clear and obvious effect on political discourse in the US. Particularly about things like LGBT rights, racism, misogyny and plenty of other hot button topics right now. Their part in all of this is obvious
deleted by creator
How many deaths does Reagan get to cause before it exceeds “Agree to disagree” territory?
deleted by creator
I mean… Reagan not only cheered on the death of LGBTQ+ people, he actively caused many of those deaths because of his policy decisions during the AIDS crisis.
Civility is out the window. But it was Reagan who threw it.
deleted by creator
His administration, and his press secretary, used to refer to AIDS as “the gay plague” that only affected “fairies”. And because it only affected the undesirables, they dragged their feet on addressing the issue. Reagan’s actions were genocidal.
deleted by creator
Pedantic little wanker, aren’t you?
deleted by creator
So, you wouldn’t wish death on, say, Hitler? Would you say those that did in WW2 were no longer human?
Hey! Say what you want about Hitler, but he did kill Hitler. Show some respect!!!1!!
Hitler took away the greatest prize of WWII so Russia could not have it and frankly that’s a monumental disgrace that he did that
The title of “the guy who killed Hitler” is now a moot reward
deleted by creator
I find that a fundamentally ridiculous point of view, that human life is something so valuable that, paradoxically, no amount of human lives ended could ever justify wishing death on someone, but props for consistency, I guess.
deleted by creator
That presumes that wishing for someone’s death dehumanizes them.
Created an example and a precedent that rulership is not a shield against punishment? Removed a vile human being from existence? Avenged the literal millions of helpless innocents he ordered slaughtered?
Death is often a viable solution. Oftentimes more viable than the alternatives.
All other options having failed, sometimes that means they’re no longer breathing.
I just love (/s) how tone is policed harder than literal stochastic terrorism from the right.
They can tolerate killing people, but they draw the line at uncivil words!
(Unless of course those uncivil words are said towards the people being killed, then they conveniently didn’t hear them.)
Hard to rule when you are dead. Thats probably the reason why people cheer and not for the death itself.
Hello, Trolley
Well hello, Trolley
It’s so nice to have you back where you belong…
I think it’s fine to wish that no one has to die, ever. It’s expected to wish that no one ever gets murdered, or eaten by wild tigers, or starves to death in the midst of plenty.
You can let your trolley run over and kill six people, or you can divert to a siding and kill a single person. And that single person is also Hitler in 1932, and instead of six people it’s six million. Or, rather, 11 million total victims of the camps. Or around 80 million deaths in total.
If we could, for the purposes of the thought experiment, save 80 million lives by killing Hitler in 1932, would killing Hitler be a moral act? Is it mandatory, meaning that choosing not to kill Hitler, knowing for certain what was about to happen, would be an immoral act?
The surgeon problem is a fun inversion of the trolley. You have Hitler on the operating table, and the only way you can save his life is to harvest the organs from six otherwise healthy patients. You have to kill six random people so that 1932 Hitler can love and go about his business with WWII and the holocaust. Except instead of six people, it’s 80 million. You can see it’s the exact same dilemma as the trolley problem but made more - forgive me - visceral.
If we don’t high five the surgeon who chooses to let 1932 Hitler die rather than harvesting the organs from 80 million people, it’s only because the decision is so obvious that it doesn’t even seem to need congratulations. It’s not that we’re avoiding celebrating because we would have preferred a scenario where you are a vampire and could hypnotize Hitler to give up politics and return to art school, and then fly around the world hypnotizing the other world leaders to not punish the German people over the decisions made by their government. You could hypnotize US leadership to let Japan pursue economic development, and hypnotize Japanese leadership to be a liberal democracy rather than a militarized autocracy. But those scenarios don’t seem appropriately serious enough for the discussion.
The thing is that you can’t agree to disagree with a Hitler. James Baldwin wrote
We can disagree on tax policy and agree to debate and take it to the court of public opinion.
When people talk about the ethics of murdering Hitler, it’s not about tax policy.
deleted by creator
in your hypothetical situation, a bomb being dropped on Hitler and the war being over are inexorably linked
so it seems like what you’re saying is that you’re not quite on the ball enough to understand your own thought experiement?
deleted by creator
my sweet baby boy there is no difference
if you cheer the end of a war because a bomb was dropped on somebody’s head, you’re cheering the fact that a bomb was dropped on that person’s head, whether you realise it or not