fuckduck9000
2yr ago
It’s overkill. It’s not discreet. It’s symbolically cucking the country. And from her pov, she’s got options, therefore she probably has a huge ego, and it’s hard to get someone like that to do your bidding.
A common wench would be far more serviceable. It's not like you need top 0.01% attractiveness to get into a guy's pants.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
So the entire miss russia contest is a KGB recruitment drive so they can flog the most attractive woman in the land to some third-rate twitterati?
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Some ritual humbling may be a more humane solution than just violence. Forbid the building and repairing of mosques and any religious noise, special tax, obligatory bowing when they pass a jew on the street...
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
It's because when morality is not about certain things being inherently immoral, but about utils adding up
So ? Utils represent human suffering. Your objection is like saying 'a million deaths is just a statistic'. Just because it's a number doesn't mean it has no moral and emotional value.
you can't guarantee that your approach actually results in the highest amount of utils, your moral outrage fails on it's own terms.
And you can? Why is utilitarianism alone held to this prohibitive standard?
There's a large overlap between moral systems, virtue ethics, deontology, golden rule, utilitarianism,etc . You don't need utils to come to the conclusion that slavery and mass murder is wrong.
Yes, I too believe that the world would be better if everyone had exactly my morality, and put it above legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, and every other concern.
Ok, great. Although I did not stipulate 'my exact morality'. They should use their morality before legality, obedience, etc; too.
This is literally never going to happen though, dismissing all other concerns is much more likely to result you being annihilated with no regrets by someone who think's they are good and you are evil.
You're throwing this out like it's supposed to mean anything, meanwhile millions of people died 'doing their duty' for an evil cause, including in the example under discussion, or a more infamous one, closer to my family history.
Even out of context - "No on one is perfect" is not relativistic.
I said trivial, if this is all he meant.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Well then, I'm sorry but I can't take your moral outrage seriously.
Why? Is utilitarianism obviously wrong? Do you think morality is a solved problem?
Or am I not allowed to express moral outrage because I do not revere a wrathful god?
Armies not following orders don't do whatever the hell you want them to do, they do whatever the hell they want to do.
I ask of them only what I ask of everyone else: make sure you act morally first, and only later worry about legality, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, etc.
Either way I fail to see how this has anything to do with your "Perhaps, but not down the middle.
You should value this because no cause, no nation, no people, not even individuals are ever truly virtuous, as the line of good and evil runs through every human heart.
This is an entire sentence. It has nothing to do with statues. It is relativistic. It is either trivial: ‘there’s good and bad in everyone’. Or : It equates all inviduals, causes, and peoples as morally the same, half-good, half-evil (down the middle). I disagree strongly with that.
"Lesson One" from historians, that you shouldn't judge the past by today's standards, and it's pretty clear to me that this is what's happening here.
Red herring. Since you, FC, me and the woke, all agree that he served evil based on our, today’s, standards. We’re just haggling about honor within evil and statue moving costs etc. There is no need to dynamite our agreed-upon moral foundation with appeals to relativism and accusations of manicheism.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I’ll have to try that. But what is the point of this early stock reducing phase? I thought reducing was the last step, with tomatoes and everything, so it all comes together, boils together, thickens together. But if it’s important to your recipe, then I’d as soon just boil the stock in another pan until nothing’s left and then wash the pan.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
This is like saying you can't expect a soldier not to shoot his comrades when you order him to fire. People can follow more than one instruction at the time, they can do conditional clauses.
I don't think it's ever a good thing to frame a suspect. If necessary, they should just murder the guy off-duty, so there is no corruption of the justice system.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
As if you get to define both honor and evil in order to serve your own purpose.
I was disputing FC’s point that we should value leaders who conduct themselves “honorably”, even for an evil cause. If you want to make the case that the confederacy was not evil, that’s a different argument (and one I am less interested in).
There’s a semi-famous 18th century german general whose epitaph reads “Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam keine Ehre brach’(‘Chose disgrace, when obedience brought no honor’. ) They aren’t the same thing.
There are many reasons why someone would follow orders beyond voluntarily surrendering their humanity. The most obvious one being fear of punishment or reprisal, and it's so obvious I wonder how you could have omitted it from your perspective.
Coercion is an excuse for doing evil, my problem is with the claim that following evil orders is worthy of praise/honorable/good.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
May I ask what your moral framework is based on?
Mostly utilitarian, but golden rule with some bells and whistles also works. As in: Do I want people to behave honorably when serving an evil master that is harming me and others? No, I want them to be as dishonorable as possible, and stab the guy in the back.
He wasn't talking about how it absolves anyone of moral responsibility, he was saying you might want to think twice before you wish for armies that don't follow orders.
I don’t see the argument. How would the world have been worse off if Lee, and the rest of the confederacy, had decided that their cause and this war was a stupid, disgraceful affair?
Saying "we shouldn't purge the world of statues of honorable men fighting for the wrong cause" is not "refusing to discriminate between shades of grey".
He spoke generally, and I was responding to those claims. Such as:
one can[not] simply "do the right thing"
I can give him this line every time the woke do something he doesn’t approve of.
‘they see morality as a solved problem’ and ‘[as] obviously and eternally correct ‘
strawmannish.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
This is some bullshit relativism. There is no honor in serving an evil cause. Although I suppose one can avoid heaping evil upon evil. It is really a perversion of honor and duty to use them for evil. Moral judgment applies to the master and falls on the servants, the tools by themselves have no moral valence.
People who just follow orders mistakenly think they can abdicate their moral responsibility. In voluntarily surrendering their humanity to act like a “good” cog, they ironically ensure that the machine’s work is the only true measure of their morality.
You should value this because no cause, no nation, no people, not even individuals are ever truly virtuous, as the line of good and evil runs through every human heart.
Perhaps, but not down the middle. If you refuse to discriminate between gradations of grey, you cannot condemn anything.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Nah, don’t believe it (the strong claim: mass executions for mutiny). Too “stalingrad”, especially with the ‘human wave tactics’ kicker. They’re not that desperate. Cynical, amoral, sure, but not that stupidly barbaric. Article’s claims are vague and ambiguous. My priors are both sides are lying as much as possible. If the claim looks like a trope it’s even less likely to be true.
I’ll change my mind if the other side confirms two executions pour encourager les autres. And if that happens I’ll update towards the russian army being on its last legs instead of slowly losing the attritional game.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
sarcastic quoting of kendi.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
The quantity of wombs is not the limiting factor in human reproduction anymore. If societies cared, they would draft women's wombs like they draft men's lives.
I don't recognize the need to accomodate your squeamishness, rooted as it is in disregard for the lives of my kind. What is rape to death? However, if you feel that strongly about it, you could shelter one woman from her obligations by taking on both her duty and yours, bleeding twice. Just as long as I don't have to do double-duty myself.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I can’t tell if your main objection is that you think they’re completely useless or if it’s a chivalry/”we must protect the eggs” thing. Every ‘defense’ of women on that subject straddles that line. Do you have any reason to assume male soldiers would have been more effective in the towers?
As for me, though I applaud the IDF’s efforts, I don’t think 18% (and corresponding casualties – though they are not corresponding at present) is quite cutting it, politically speaking. Women’s voting rights, all voting rights (like those of pacifists), should be curtailed to the group's casualty/combat proportion, ie, 18% would mean they get less than a quarter the voting power of a man. Political power ultimately derives from the barrel of a gun. One man, one gun, one pint of blood, one vote. We in the west, by and large living on “strategic islands”, can afford to ignore that reality, but israel cannot carry freeloaders indefinitely.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
oh, just forget it, skook. Stay alone forever, and make zero effort. More than one way to skin a cat.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
The actual problem is that it isn't actually possible for you to credibly advocate cracking down on riots in the abstract
Oh no? The other riots should be crushed too; it’s nonsense to let it happen because they have ‘legitimate grievances’. Preferably by military-police, but backing rittenhouse style ‘vigilantism’ also works. But if you have only one unit available, definitely send it to the seat of government power first, even if those rioters are less violent, cause less property damage (which definitely is the case here). The challenge to state authority is of a much more grievous nature. Far more emboldening for any other group.
Do you not see the distinction between the riots? In minneapolis, a rioter says: ‘I am angry, I want to destroy, I’d like free stuff’. In washington, ‘Let me rule over you’. It's an attack on your power, a threat to your rights, not just criminality.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
or just let them have the buildings and reconvene elsewhere.
I can't tell if you guys are blinded by partisan bias or if you actually believe this. Might as well hand them your ‘monopoly on force’ card right there. What if they start putting people in ‘prison’ like the bolsheviks 1917? Just negotiate for their release by granting the rebels taxing rights over fisheries in northern maine?
And this from people who are vociferous supporters of castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in any other context.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I don’t think it’s childish, it’s necessary. Current responses are too soft, dare I say, decadent. It is not unthinkable, and it has happened in history, that one day a mob will just waltz in there, slap the president around a little, declare they’re in charge now, and everyone will go: ‘What are we supposed to do, spill blood? We are civilized, let’s just do what they say and hope for the best“.
It comes down to the same disconnect I talked about last time, that somehow public life does not matter, only your private red lines. This is a gigantic collective red line, representing an almost unfathomable amount of lethal force directed at everybody. If it is not defended, nothing ever should be.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
It is difficult to understand normal-speed spoken swiss as a german and quebecois when you’re french. But the reverse is not true. So the clean, formal, hegemonic version of the language forces itself into the conversation, and people resent that, especially if they’re at home.
Vickem the third was a useless retard, I'll die on that hill. You're the friggin' king- right there, it's a good chunk conservatives in your pocket, including the military. Plus all of the left and center. No one understood his decision.
Edit: Here's what wiki has to say:
General Pietro Badoglio told the King that the military would be able without difficulty to rout the rebels, who numbered no more than 10,000 men armed mostly with knives and clubs whereas the Regio Esercito had 30,000 soldiers in the Rome area armed with heavy weapons, armoured cars, and machine guns.[7] During the "March on Rome", the Fascist squadristi were halted by 400 lightly armed policemen, as the squadristi had no desire to take on the Italian state.[8]
The troops were loyal to the King; even Cesare Maria De Vecchi, commander of the Blackshirts, and one of the organisers of the March on Rome, told Mussolini that he would not act against the wishes of the monarch. De Vecchi went to the Quirinal Palace to meet the king and assured him that the Fascists would never fight against the king.[9] It was at this point that the Fascist leader considered leaving Italy altogether. But then, minutes before midnight, he received a telegram from the King inviting him to Rome. Facta had the decree for martial law prepared after the cabinet had unanimously endorsed it, and was very surprised when he learned about 9 am on 28 October that the king had refused to sign it.[6] When Facta protested that the king was overruling the entire cabinet, he was told that this was the royal prerogative and the king did not wish to use force against the Fascists.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I mean, the italian army could have swatted mussolini's rabble like flies if vic emmanuel hadn't been such a wet noodle. Caesar's XIII's legion, and later the rest, could not be swatted, it turned out.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Do you or anyone else believe that delaying that event changed who is president, or who won the election?
No, it did nothing. But it may have emboldened the next mob, the next coup , and that is reason enough to crush it.
Seems like you’re implying I ruined things, but I’m not blue tribe, american, or progressive. And you owe me one ring. Sex is sex, but money is cash.
I don’t get your point. It’s over, democracy means nothing anymore, is that it? Boogaloo Day? Can’t tell the difference between the worst civil war and your day-to-day life? Wouldn't have pegged you as a blackpill overdose patient.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
Ah, sorry was there a military general leading armed troops into the capital? I must have missed that news story.
Mussolini, not Caesar, reference, but they were both bald, so understandable.
It wasn't a threat to democracy. It was a threat to the illusion and symbology of our democracy.
Same thing. Power resides where men believe it resides. You're telling me about BLM and the democrats did this and that, and I sympathize, but really, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Anyone attempting to take the symbol of power by force should die for it, doesn't matter who it is. It's sacro-sanct, like a vestal virgin or a tribune of the plebs. We have elections and stuff to decide who gets to hold the magic scepter.
fuckduck9000
2yr ago
I’m just telling you what a self-respecting sovereign would do in his house. Put one of those ‘we don’t call 911’ signs at the entrance, and machine-gun anyone who enters without knocking.
I don't understand why it's his fault that you can't criticize islam without the woke singing you the song of the oppressed.
More options
Context Copy link