This is like basic trolly problem shit.

The trolley problem itself is shit.

I think the question is a very, to put it mildly, useless question. It’s a typical example of an analytic philosophical thought experiment, which is has basically nothing to do with real life. No one has ever been in a situation as it is described in the trolley problem.

That doesn’t mean that sometimes, unfortunately, we are in situations where we are where we experience a moral dilemma. Of course we’re often in a situation where we experience a form of moral dilemma. But moral dilemmas are always concrete, and you always experience them under specific conditions, in a specific context that is very complex. You have specific means to make the decision, and practically never are universal moral principles even helpful to make that decision.

As a matter of fact, moral principles are I would say empirically never really used to actually decide moral dilemmas. They are used after the fact to justify a decision, which is a typical form of moral communication.

If everyone knows—including you—that Russia isn’t socialist, why would you imply that it is?

Rimu doesn’t want authoritarians.

“Authoritarian” is the new “totalitarian” as “tankie” is the new “commie.” Horseshoe theory is horseshit.

I have now, and I see little of note. Why do you bring it up?

Edit to add: I wouldn’t bring up others’ modlogs if I were you, because they may then take a look at yours.

I wouldn’t assume he believes what he says.

There are two parties because it’s a first past the post system, but that is a red herring. It’s not the source of the problem. The problem is that the US is a bourgeois democracy, AKA an oligarchy.

it’s the rich continuously stealing more capital and destroying businesses that is the problem

The rich are rich because they own the businesses. They own the means of production. The problem is capitalism; it’s private ownership of the means of production.

Every time 😂

tankies who worship their little red bibles.

Cool story bro.

Hard to say because they’re not always coherent. There’s a fair amount of vagueness and stream-of-consciousness. They never bring evidence though; they just spin narratives.

And an opt-in filter at that. A nothingburger.

I’m sorry you had to suffer our toxic defense of Palestinians and our protest of Israel’s genocide of them.

The reason it’s in Republicans the duopoly’s best interest to keep people stupid is that stupid people are much easier to propagandize to.

FTFY

We’ve been propagandized to believe that “centrist” journalism is the most reliable, and that the further from center the less reliable, and given how far to the right the Overton window is in capitalist states, “centrism” is objectively right wing. And the premise of “centrist objectivity” doesn’t hold water.

Unfortunately I don’t have time right now to dig up my relevant previouslies on media literacy, propaganda, and Gramscian hegemonic theory.

Edit to add: even what the average person considers to be”ethical” is shaped by how he ruling class. In capitalist states, for instance, private property is sacrosanct.

What the propagandized perceive as “unbiased” is in fact the hegemonic bias of the ruling class. That’s what you’re asking for without even realizing it.

Clearly this was created by an unlicensed memer who would fail the Accessibility exam.

Some of what you said is true, actually. Previously:

China wouldn’t have made it this far without “opening up,” the purpose of which was to accelerate the development of the productive forces by importing capital, technology, and knowledge from advanced capitalist states.

The capitalist states didn’t realize this at the time, though. They thought China’s “opening up” was the “liberalization” of China, as happened to the USSR. China punked them. The West de-industrialized itself for “cheap” labor, and now China holds the cards.

What’s different about China is that, unlike in capitalist states, the capitalists don’t run the state.