This is like basic trolly problem shit.

The trolley problem itself is shit.

I think the question is a very, to put it mildly, useless question. It’s a typical example of an analytic philosophical thought experiment, which is has basically nothing to do with real life. No one has ever been in a situation as it is described in the trolley problem.

That doesn’t mean that sometimes, unfortunately, we are in situations where we are where we experience a moral dilemma. Of course we’re often in a situation where we experience a form of moral dilemma. But moral dilemmas are always concrete, and you always experience them under specific conditions, in a specific context that is very complex. You have specific means to make the decision, and practically never are universal moral principles even helpful to make that decision.

As a matter of fact, moral principles are I would say empirically never really used to actually decide moral dilemmas. They are used after the fact to justify a decision, which is a typical form of moral communication.

If everyone knows—including you—that Russia isn’t socialist, why would you imply that it is?

I wouldn’t assume he believes what he says.

Clearly this was created by an unlicensed memer who would fail the Accessibility exam.

Some of what you said is true, actually. Previously:

China wouldn’t have made it this far without “opening up,” the purpose of which was to accelerate the development of the productive forces by importing capital, technology, and knowledge from advanced capitalist states.

The capitalist states didn’t realize this at the time, though. They thought China’s “opening up” was the “liberalization” of China, as happened to the USSR. China punked them. The West de-industrialized itself for “cheap” labor, and now China holds the cards.

What’s different about China is that, unlike in capitalist states, the capitalists don’t run the state.

I’m an outlier who didn’t get here through the school of hard knocks. I’m a petit bourgeois tech bro class traitor.

Apparently she’s just here to vaguepost.

Citations Needed podcast:
Whataboutism - The Media’s Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy

Since the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.

But what if “whataboutism” isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term “whataboutism” has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.

No, male chauvinism is about sexism. You accidentally a word.

That’s fine among limeys, but I don’t think anyone else recognizes it.

Apple pie with (cheddar) cheese apparently was a New England staple in the 17th century, but I don’t know if anyone had it for breakfast.

A very old New Englander once to my girlfriend & me that we went together “like pie with cheese.” We had idea what to make of it.

Hey, what was that about imperialism and Taiwan?

You know less than nothing. You would have to unlearn things just to break even, to know nothing.

Really it’s their team that should have been named the Yankees. And it would have paired well with the Patriots.

I took myself out of the lavender but never the lavender out of me.

I don’t know what to make of the “pie for breakfast” reference. Anyone?

Oh yeah. I’ve seen it written this way before and just aped it.

But I will say “Anarcokiddies get the wall” jokes really don’t help either when they pop up.

They really don’t.

I find the constant random shitting on anarchist around here annoying in general

They annoy me, too, especially when they’re lazy, cheap shots like this low-effort meme. They’re counterproductive.

I dissuade Party members from putting down people who do not understand. Even people who are unenlightened and seemingly bourgeois should be answered in a polite way. Things should be explained to them as fully as possible. I was turned off by a person who did not want to talk to me because I was not important enough. Maurice just wanted to preach to the converted, who already agreed with him. I try to be cordial, because that way you win people over. You cannot win them over by drawing the line of demarcation, saying you are on this side and I am on the other; that shows a lack of consciousness. After the Black Panther Party was formed, I nearly fell into this error. I could not understand why people were blind to what I saw so clearly. Then I realized that their understanding had to be developed.
— Huey P. Newton

How is that relevant to the topic at hand, which is baking political opinions into a platform’s codebase?

Lemmy.ml the instance isn’t Lemmy the software platform, and there are plenty of Lemmy instances out there that align with your bog-standard imperial core political sensibilities.

TBF migrating a userbase and its content to another platform is very hard.