not with lemmy, but with mbin

until further notice assume every billionaire is implicated

so. epstein’s cover story as a finacier was that if you wanted to get a thing funded or to get a project in front of someone who could greenlight it, you could go to him and he could introduce you. he was referred to as a matchmaker for money. the reality of course it turned out is that he was who oligarchs went to when they wanted to fuck a vulnerable child from the global south. so when people went to him to introduce them to someone else, how he knew whoever it was was from his experience as a professional sex pest.

this is the problem rooting a system of ethics in an authoritative morality. morality is socially assigned where as ethics are derived based on reaching consensus. whether or not something is morally right or wrong is nearly indistinguishable from whether or not something is legally allowed or disallowed. the Israelis have been programmed for 80 years to believe that theirs is the most moral army because their interpretation of the torah tells them it must be so. the nazis believed they were right, and so did the americans and british they were drawing inspiration from.

much better to focus on ethics derived on features of what it means to be human and what dignities we must all have respected as we navigate the world

this has also been the case for prior genocidal projects

Ack! Sorry it’s been a few years since ethics was my primary academic focus. It’s mostly been software engineering of late so I’ll take the L on misspelling Immanuel. However, I am not trying to claim an ethics rooted in naturalism in the first place. It’s more consequentialist/deongological in nature in the first place (which by its very nature puts me at odds with the origin of this meme as I do not believe moral development maps out in praxis). However the root between Kant, Gilligan, and even Mills still remains that the better the world you exist in and work towards, the better off you will be. In fact you’ll find that many of the different ways of phrasing the golden rules are ultimately driving at that.

Either way though it’s clear we fundamentally disagree on the root level of what it means to determine what ought and oughtn’t be done. I believe we must make a world that works for everyone (and I do very much like Kant’s universal law phrasing of the golden rule), and I’m actually not all that clear on what your fundamental root is, just that you consider me to be a “do your own research type” which… Y’know kinda bums me out as someone who dedicated himself to getting educated in doing the right thing and spent a lot of hours reading scholarly journals on ethics and writing papers about what right and wrong is.

I’d actually really like to know what philosophers you like and what your ethical grounding is because it’s clear you think I don’t get it at all, and that means there’s probably an avenue for growth for me. For reference, when I submitted my ethical framework for peer review, the thinkers I cited the most were Gilligan, Nussbaum, Marx, and Daniel Clement’s (sorry about the misspelling, I can’t do accents on this keyboard) collection of essays on Algonquin societal structures (Native American philosophy is organized much differently from how European philosophy is and that’s still something I’m working to better understand my shortcomings in)

yet that’s the grounding of major schools of ethical thought like Emmanuel Kant and Carol Gilligan. i’m actually not sure where your statement is coming from in that from a long term perspective, the most selfish egotistical thing you can do is act and work in a manner that will bring about a world in which everyone’s needs are met. even when put to test in the crucible of crisis, we find over and over again that the idea that every individual is just another reflection of you helps us build more robust mutual aid networks that address systems failures better than any authority can

you take that back about the square drive and pin that shit on the phillips head

context: the square drive was designed as a universal open standard for affixing things to other things. the phillips head was designed as a cheap alternative to torque wrenches

“oh! i’m excited to discuss the themes of this manga, how the world and conflicts reflect our own, and how this advocates for a political framework centered around eroding authoritarianism by helping our friends”

“the asexual and the lesbian should fuck”

“…”

“it’s not that deep”

which are plot, relevant, by the way, and also help create the beloved feeling of the series’ world that it is a world in motion even when we’re not looking. it’s thanks to the cover stories that the supernovas don’t feel like an asspull despite being conceived of the week they were introduced

subsonic is a similar setup though nowhere near as much love yet

they’ve convinced a disturbing number of people that the 3/5 compromise was a radical step towards the global abolishment of slavery

when i went looking for one all i could find was stories about how denver cancelled their salvation army contracts after violent clashes

i only have experience with my local unitarian universalist church who broke away from the organization when the organization was a little to accepting of zionism. it’s kind of a paradox of tolerance thing. but i can’t really speak on where the national organization is when i have no ties to them and the only ones i had got severed. they might be good they might not. it would be inappropriate and irresponsible for me to say. if you’ve been engaged with them or their members and are finding them helpful in these times, then i see no reason not for you to say “these guys are good, others should check them out”

it makes your nose red

i would direct people to in particular consider coalition building with the united methodist church and evangelical Lutheran christian in america (ELCA). neither group is perfect but they’re both involved in civil rights activism

they, additionally, are against labor unions and secular soup kitchens. they claim to want to help people, but they won’t help people unless it feeds their savior complex and control over congregation.

the funny part to me is that jesus reads as an anti-authoritarian. he preaches that it is better to help the hungry than to be dogmatic about orthodoxy. makes the salvation army seem pretty unchristian

there’s other shelters that salvation army actively antagonizes and lobbies against so they can have a monopoly on coercing the homeless into swearing to be devout to the salvation army’s christofascist views.

“i refuse to respect thou’s pronouns so thou’s pronouns are now thou/thee”

the controlled opposition comedian. the favorite comedian of anyone who actually thinks chuck schumer is doing well