GarbageShoot [he/him]

  • 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 18th, 2022

help-circle


  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netto> Greentext@lemmy.mlSupportive dad
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I see. I neglected an interpretation and it was important. So if someone says, for example and not necessarily making assertions about the OOP, that “I’m trans because I was born with a micropenis and that fuckin’ sucks,” your internal response would be “This person is trans, but doesn’t understand why they are trans.” [Or that it is likely that they don’t understand, and see what I said before about this implying it is true of some hypothetical people]

    Is that a more fair representation of your view?

    (I put this under the wrong comment at first somehow, but also I was partly using information from that one)



  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netto> Greentext@lemmy.mlSupportive dad
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    We’re talking about an imagined person whose internality we have access to. If you acknowledge that, within the assumptions of your own ideology, there could be people that are “likely not trans”, that means essentially that there is an array of different possible stipulated people and some of them are trans, but most of them aren’t. Another way to put it is that, if you said you were “80% sure” that someone wasn’t trans that means, depending on certain unknown variables that actually determine the truth of that guess, there are 20 possible worlds where they are trans and 80 where they aren’t.

    All this to say, based on what you expressed ideologically originally and even in your refutation, it is consistent to stipulate a self-identified trans person who you identify as not trans, even if you would never tell a person that in real life (out of respect, because it involves information you can’t access, etc.). Does that make sense? I feel like I got a little bogged down in adjectives, but I felt obliged to explain myself further given the “Excuse you”.



  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netto> Greentext@lemmy.mlSupportive dad
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This very well may be fake, but it’s also entirely possible to identify as trans for any number of reasons. You might say such a person is “not really” trans but, supposing that is true, there’s no contradiction between that and some person who doesn’t have such ideological convictions having a thought process like you see in this image and acting on it.

    That said, I agree that it’s probably fake, though I’m not as confident that the poster is a cis impersonator.


  • I’m accepting the premise of the Allied powers including the Soviet Union.

    This is nonsense when the SU was deliberately cut out of the deal anyway. Obviously the SU didn’t want a Japan that didn’t go through a de-fashifying process, but that’s mostly what they got with the American occupation, which is how we got the modern liberal state that literally worships its fascist forebears and maintains an ethnonationalist ideology. I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you about Unit 731 getting off scot-free or the rest of it.

    Then, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan roughly around the time that the bombs were dropped.

    This was not entirely a coincidence. Again, you are completely ignoring the significant “sticking it to the Reds” angle. A fantasy US that actually cared about sparing lives would allow the Soviet Union to begin its invasion to it and the SU can negotiate for conditional surrender that keeps the Emperor from a still-stronger position.

    I don’t know how to explain to you that the US was a deeply racist state that held Japanese lives to be subhuman to the point that they fully were non-factors in proceedings other than as a vector of attack to twist Japan’s arm. See the Korean and Vietnam wars were there was also extensive reporting on the dehumanization of “g**ks” done by all facets of society, civilian and military.

    By the time there was only one condition, an atomic bomb had been dropped.

    Remind me, how strongly connected were these two events? Right at the end, as you have somewhat noted, many things were happening at once.

    The most generous interpretation, which I don’t uphold, still neglects that there was not only one bomb dropped and the second one has remained without even a gesture at justification.


  • Conditional surrender was off the table.

    Why? You are accepting the framing of the US military when it is overwhelmingly obvious from how negotiations transpired after the bombs were dropped that there was no particular use for unconditional surrender! They still kept their Emperor! Again, it’s 200,000 dead for semantics and sticking it to the Reds, and you clearly have no answer to that.

    It is funny how much anti-nuclear people focus on the dropping of two bombs when they were only a fraction of the total deaths caused

    “It is funny how” Yeah, I’m sure you’re just rofling over firebombed slaves and children. People mainly focus on the bombs because the case of the bombs is extremely simple, as we’ve demonstrated in this conversation where you completely ignore the reality of the situation in favor of arbitrary axioms that question-beg your desired conclusions. I’m not in favor of how the US conducted most of the war against Japan, but that’s a much larger topic that is tangential to the rest of the thread. Fighting a war against Japan was plainly justified, but the way the US approached it – by annihilating as much of the population as it could manage both through indiscriminate bombing and, as you say, blockades that starved the population, served as a grim foreshadowing of what the US would do to Korea and then Vietnam.




  • The Soviets might have actually been justified in dropping the bomb if they had it since the Nazis were fighting to exterminate them, something that can’t be said of Japan towards America at any point, let alone near the end of the war, and don’t tell me America even slightly cared about the Chinese being slaughtered or the Korean slaves they would blow to ash.

    But the myth about the Soviets being especially cruel to the Nazis is one of many fascist myths propagated to reverse the roles of victim and genocidaire, let alone the idea that they did anything so cruel as eradicate the better part of two entire major cities of civilians along with most traces of their existence. There is no comparing the conduct of the two countries in WWII, and the fact that people believe the Soviets were substantially worse is a product of Cold War revisionism.