ToastedPlanet

joined 2 years ago
[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I am a Jew. Free Palestine!

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Exactly, they should! What they’re doing instead is using violence on people outside their in-group.

The fascists are trying to kill people. In response your argument proposes what is best described as a kind of Stockholm syndrome. But instead of a empathy for captors your argument would have victims have empathy for their murderers. Like some kind of extreme form of rape culture. It's disgusting in my opinion.

Neither are the people celebrating here, according to this logic. See the issue?

Those tolerant people are feeling empathy for each other regardless of their group. They are even expressing empathy for Charlie Kirk's children. So they are following the social contract where as the fascists are not.

Apparently they are not, as exemplified by celebration of violence here.

Those who break the peace treaty are not protected by it. The fascists broke the peace treaty so the fascists are not protected by it.

They feel empathy for the intolerant

The users in this thread are still tolerant of each other, regardless of group. So the empathy they feel towards each other is for tolerant people of different groups.

, and dislike the emphatic.

Fascists want to kill out groups. Fascists are practicing parochial empathy if even that. Your argument seems to have no grasp of what empathy is or how to practice it in a healthy or useful way so it is not compelling. edit: typo

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago (8 children)

You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?

Tolerant people in groups whether that is by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are still feeling empathy for tolerant people outside their groups. So people practicing tolerance as a peace treaty are still practicing empathy not parochial empathy.

Do you see the problem with using a straw man to argue? Refuting your argument is trivial.

That’s what most here are doing.

Considering this acts in accordance with self-preservation this is a rational and useful decision to have made.

Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal?

Charlie Kirk and the other fascists he was a mouth piece for have already broken the social contract with their fascist takeover of the United States. This fascists administration goal is to around up minority groups into death camps and a pollute the planet as much as possible with coal powered 'freedom cities'. The fascist chose to break the peace treaty and so they are no longer protected by it.

The intolerant group has already decided those being tolerant are fair game before this. The fascists already wanted to kill people. We knew this before the election. They were completely open with what they wanted to do. Now tolerant people have to work together with people outside their groups to defend themselves against intolerant fascists. This is a clear cut example of real empathy.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago (10 children)

You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.

No parochial empathy is when an in-group only has empathy for the in-group and none for any out-groups.

The resolution to the paradox of tolerance does not require individuals in a group to only experience empathy for other individuals in their group.

Instead members of groups that adhere to the social contract or peace treaty of tolerance all feel empathy for each other.

Only when an individual, individuals, or a group of people break the social contract or peace treaty are they no longer protected by it. Every individual in the groups still being tolerant still feel empathy for each other across group lines.

This is so the groups that practice tolerance can defend themselves from a group that has chosen to be intolerant. Such as the Nazis killing minority groups in WWII.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 months ago

That assumes a person isn't a Hispanic day laborer at a hospital during an ICE raid. ICE seems to be focusing on places of work for their targets, but with the current pause on the federal judge's ruling, ICE can violate the fourth amendment anywhere.

ICE doesn't need any ID to look at a person and make a judgement based on physical appearance.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-federal-officers-to-more-freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/

In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that the Trump administration, “and now the concurrence” by Kavanaugh, “has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

In Sotomayor’s view, the Trump administration had not shown that it was ultimately likely to prevail on the merits. In particular, she wrote, “a set of facts cannot constitute reasonable suspicion if it ‘describes a very large category of presumably innocent’ people.” “Allowing the seizure,” she said, “of any Latino speaking Spanish at a car wash in Los Angles tramples the constitutional requirement that officers ‘must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’”

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 months ago

How about no.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 months ago

Don't be fooled! That unmarked truck was a Decepticon! They are an invasive species that destabilizes the natural order of the Interstate Highway System depriving automobiles of their automeals.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I know that. Read the comment section. There is a user arguing against shutting down the government on the basis of a third option that the user cannot give in any detail. We need to be pushing the Democrats for a shutdown because they will not do it on their own. The last thing we need is to give Democrats an out when we do not have a third option.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

No shit. Look at what is being argued in this comment section. We need the Democrats to shutdown the government. A user is determined to push a third option instead that the user cannot list. The last thing we need is for people to assume there is a third option when we don't have one. edit: typos

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The way to solve climate change is to stop carbon emissions. The trick is to convince everyone to do that. No one has written anything down that does that on its own or in aggregate so an LLM cannot regurgitate that answer.

Solving the climate crisis will inevitably involve the working class overthrowing the owner class, because we need power to change the systems of government and business responsible for pollution. The working class is the only class incentivized to fix the climate crisis, because the workers can't all fit in apocalypse bunkers the way the owner class can. And again no one wrote down the thing that will give all workers class consciousness so LLMs can't regurgitate that either.

The LLMs aren't AGI. So the theoretical abilities of AGIs and the consequences of creating AGIs aren't relevant. edit: typos

Open the image in a new tab and zoom in to at least 240%. It's fine.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

This is your reminder that we are in a make a deal or shut down situation because of how the Constitution requires the Democrats to have a majority of votes to do anything. Which in theory is how things should work in a majority rule democracy. edit: typo

Without the shutdown Democrats wouldn't have any leverage right now. Which isn't great, but is better than nothing for fighting fascism. It would have been better if Democrats had been socialists from the get go and gotten rid of the debt ceiling when they had power but they weren't and they didn't.

If you have a third option please share it. And make sure you're getting fresh air in your building.

 

From remains an unabashed centrist who believes that economic growth, not the economic populism of Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is the answer. “It’s important the critical mass in the Democratic party show that it’s the party of opportunity, responsibility and community but not the party of the left,” he insists.

He also argues that the party should not be afraid to talk about law enforcement and developing a system of community policing rather than urging “defund the police”. Likewise it should embrace the idea of legal immigration and a border that is under control. From applauds governors who have made jobs available to people without college degrees.

view more: ‹ prev next ›