this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1267 points (97.8% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
1336 readers
1320 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
❻ Don't be a dick.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
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
But bringing people over from the right is important and attacking them is counterproductive.
on a similar, related, note, integrating young men into society and not estranging them by telling them that they're the worst, is also important to have a coherent society.
Well, when they stop attacking us for believing in human rights, maybe we can have a dialogue.
Exactly, the issues we are diametrically opposed on cannot afford compromise. You can't compromise on whether or not trans people deserve to exist. You can't compromise on whether all school children deserve to eat. You can't compromise on the opposition of fascism, racism, and bigotry. These people can get on the right side of morality or they can get fucked and I'll tell every one of them to their face now that the other shoe is dropping on it. They have been offered the open hand of reason and discussion since at least 2015. They spat in our face for a decade. Now they get the fist.
So to start a dialogue, ppl must agree with your premise that human rights exist? Or should we have a dialogue where you prove human rights exist?
The conversation has to broach:
These 'dialogues' are not about things the left can morally budge on, and they're insanely exhausting, especially when your opponent isn't arguing in good faith. No one is obligated to go through that social stress, and frankly it's probably easier for most to just physically fight right-wing zealots.
Why would they have our interests at heart?
Obviously
Depends on what they like.
Nah, they don't
Why? What did they do to deserve this? And why do we ignore religion/race/background? IMO there are no "all people". Shinto japanese and Arab Muslim are two ontologically different objects like a rock and a stick. We have no reasons to treat them equally.
How are human beings treated? What is your solution? Abolish jails?
And your disagreement on this demonstrates why you're gonna get decked by leftists instead of talked to.
Not an excuse for mystification.
Also I'm pretty sure most right wing people consider themselves "moderate" or "independent" anyway so it's not like they'll feel attacked if we correctly blame the right for its crimes
Can confirm. Interview a con for my class and he was dead set that he's a centrist. Did have a single left opinion.