this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
49 points (71.3% liked)
The Democratic National Convention™ of Libjerk
249 readers
1 users here now
Dunking on Liberals from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
This community has moved to !libjerk@anarchist.nexus.
Dems keep working with trump to approve his picks, but what they won't accept is that if you sit down at a table with nazis, the only thing that's changed is the number of nazis at the table. @_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules:
- No bigotry of any kind (except towards liberalism).
- No liberals (unless you are a masochist and enjoy the abuse).
- Strictly no downvoting (downvoters may be community banned, 4 the lulz).
- Bernie Sanders is still a liberal.
- This is a genAI friendly instance, so no complaining about genAI content.
We allow posts about liberal behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion.
Sister community: !tankiejerk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Inspired by !tankiejerk@lemmy.world#
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That or these ableist opinions and pressures are an ethical flaw we will judged for in retrospect by a more advanced society.
Or perhaps applauded when the fascists win and all members of the ever growing categories of "useless eaters" are purged from humanity.
And no, it is not unethical for people to point out that these decisions are based on ableist or eugenicist thought.
What a strange leap of illogic, that it is immoral to challenge ableism and eugenics because someone's feelings might get hurt or they might doubt their own beliefs.
If the individual is fine, on review, with basing their decisions on internalized ableism or racism or whatever that is obviously their choice, but they should be made aware that that is the choice they are making.
A rational and ethical individual has an outright responsibility to bring it up, if only so the individuals in question can at least question the pressures leading to their decisions.
Try rephrasing that in such a way as to not assume ignorance on the part of the individual making the decision.
Why shouldn't I when Lemmy, a relatively educated selection of hyper lefty nerds with various mental illnesses is shitting itself in a self-righteous fury at the idea that they might be indulging in eugenicist and ableist thought?
Ignorance seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.
It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that everyone knows everything and it's therefore socially unacceptable to bring it up when on the topic.
Seems your arguments are based predominantly on stereotype rather than any actual semblance of reality.
Seems like you couldn't find a real angle to attack or a means to defend your idea that "talking about uncomfortable things is a personal attack and verboten" so you opted to ignore a plainly evident reality with proof unfolded before your eyes.
The plainly evident reality unfolded before my eyes is that "condescension" is the basis of your personality. You deem your opinion to be superior to those of anyone and everyone around you. You feel it is your moral obligation to broadly share your "wisdom"; that your audience betters themselves simply by having been exposed to your word.
In your own way, you are trying to make the world a better place. Good for you.
Probably shouldn't accuse someone of having condescension as a personality trait when using a condescending tone yourself, it's weak rhetoric.
I defer to your expert opinion.