Reminds me of this:

Not sure if this is real, but you know you’ve won at life when you can submit something looking like this and still get hired.

Still, there’s no point in making it easy for them. The sooner you accept that your rights won’t be protected, the sooner they’ll disappear entirely. You must act as if your rights are natural laws of the universe, and if enough people do then they may as well be.

It’s a bad take either way, and that interpretation makes way less sense. The reason we don’t collaborate with China is geopolitical, and has nothing to do with ethics or China being too inhumane to effectively collaborate with (whatever that means).

The problem is that meaningfully helping others often requires self-sacrifice. Solidarity is a shift in perspective, to extend the self around others and act in the collective interest.

You don’t at all see how that implies moral superiority? Or are you just giving them the benefit of the doubt?

The problem is holding China to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to.

They weren’t just asking China to be more humane, though. They were suggesting that China doesn’t deserve our cooperation because they are inhumane, which implies we have the moral high ground and is explicitly hypocritical. It isn’t whataboutism to point out hypocrisy.

Is the argument here that China isn’t worthy of the United States’ cooperation? We here in the US need to get over ourselves and stop acting as if we have the moral high ground over everyone else. There are a lot of things about the US that are far from humane, and we do cooperate with countries that engage in far worse, often on our behalf. Our adversarial disposition towards China has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with geopolitics.

The only theocratic state that can exist in Islam is a caliphate. That’s literally what is in the Quran. There’s no nuance or room for debate here.

Hypothetically, if a fascist government were to form with Islam as the state religion, I would describe it as an Islamic theocracy as well as a fascist dictatorship. To suggest they are mutually exclusive and that only a caliphate - the ideal Islamic theocracy as described in the Quran - can truly be considered an Islamic theocracy is just the No True Scotsman fallacy.

This is a common issue with organized religion in general. To an insider, only your beliefs are the true Islam, and all those others who call themselves Muslims but don’t share your exact interpretation aren’t real Muslims. To an outsider it’s obvious that they are all Muslim, just different sects. No single sect can claim their interpretation is the correct one, yet most try anyway.

Do you hate Islam? Is that why this is so hard for you to grasp?

I have no hate for Islam, and I grasp what you’re saying just fine, I just disagree.

You’re making a pure semantics argument, saying that an “Islamic theocracy” means something so specific that even if a fascist regime could be considered both Islamic and a theocracy, you can’t call it that because only caliphates qualify for that label. It’s a bit silly.

There is often a very large gap between what is seen as ideal and what pans out in reality. Fascism is absolutely a possible result of an attempt to establish a caliphate, just as an authoritarian dictatorship or oligarchy - sooner or later - is a possible result of an attempt to establish communism.

Yep, I’m a total hypocrite for defending a left-wing social media platform from your sealioning and concern trolling while the majority of platforms are undergoing a fascist takeover. If you want more diversity of opinion on lemmy then let it grow and the diversity will grow with it. Just don’t be surprised when a consensus forms among those who are fleeing fascist platforms.

What is it exactly that you’re proposing lemmy mods do differently then? Do you believe that moderate alternative views are being broadly censored across lemmy? If not, and it’s just downvotes and “groupthink” you’re complaining about, then just state your “reasonable and moderate” disagreements and let the votes fall where they may. Your alternative views are not entitled to approval, and downvotes are not censorship.

That’s because it’s exaggerated, and the kids play into it rather than cringing and moving on like you might have when you were a kid and adults tried using your slang. The reason is that unlike previous generations, gen Z has incorporated it into youth culture as a result of the current state of the internet and has a name to call it by: brainrot.

Key word here is “infinitesimally.” Of course if you’re calculating the odds of hitting something infinitesimally small you’re going to get 0. That’s just the nature of infinities. It is impossible to hit an infinitesimally small point, but that’s not what a human considers to be a “perfect bullseye.” There’s no paradox here.