What did I say that’s whataboutism? You claimed that Cuba was authoritarian and the US is free, therefore it’s perfectly valid for me to compare the two against each other. It would only not be valid if you had placed them both in the same category.

Freedom House is literally funded by the US State department lmao. Nice objective and unbiased source you’ve got there!

The only “freedom” that Freedom House cares about is how free the bourgeoisie are to infiltrate the government and capture regulatory agencies. By that metric, Cuba is much less “free” than the US, sure.

Mhm. I wonder, which objective metrics led you to list the US as more free than Cuba?

Cuba’s family code is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the world concerning LGBT rights and gender equality, meanwhile, there are parts of the US where you can get arrested for using the bathroom, or for merely failing to rat out trans kids to the cops. The US performs mass surveillance on all citizens and has the most sophisticated spy network in the world, it has used extrajudicial, indefinite detention without trial (in addition to having the highest incarceration rate in the world), along with torture (ironically, on illegally occupied Cuban soil). The US has kangaroo courts where children as young as six have to represent themselves in court with no right to an attorney, against threat of deportation. The police are equipped with military-grade equipment designed to fight insurgents, with the police budgets of individual cities exceeding that of the militaries of many countries: Cuba’s military spending is several times less than the police budget of Phoenix, AZ.

Does any of that factor into your analysis?

Non sequitor. Where did I say anything was black and white?

It’s not saying that both sides are bad? You sure about that one, chief?

What’s it saying about US imperialism? Good or bad?

What’s it saying about countries the US opposes? Good or bad?

My go to example is Bin Laden. Although to be fair Bin Laden probably killed fewer people and Luigi didn’t have to jeopardize vaccine outreach programs in developing countries to get his target.

Right, and what I’m saying is that by that very same logic, Trump supporting the Palestinian genocide doesn’t justify the democrats supporting the Palestinian genocide - they should not be considered immune to criticism either, and when people criticize them, they should not be assumed to be supporting the other side.

I couldn’t ask for clearer evidence than not accepting Saudi Arabia as authoritarian to demonstrate that “free vs authoritarian” are just propaganda terms and that how “free” a country allegedly is is really just a function of how aligned it is with the US.

In what universe is Saudi Arabia more free than Cuba?

Correct, whether it’s about countries or parties.

No u.

if you’re a global power, you’ve got a body count in the millions.

Very true. But is this an inherent trait of the world, or is there some path forward that would change or mitigate this fact?

Wait, are you saying “both sides bad?” “Both sides are the same?” Am I hearing this right?

Look, if either Xi Jinping or Donald Trump is going to emerge as leader of a global hegemon, then any and all criticism of Xi Jinping is the exact same as being a Trump supporter. When are we going to do something about all these secret Trump supporters pretending to be leftists?

At least, that’s what I’d say if I accepted the absurd logic of lesser evilism the liberals were constantly berating everyone with.

I see, my mistake.

deleted by creator

When we say landlords are bad, it’s not really about the individual people so much as it’s about the system as a whole. Ideally, the human right to housing should be guaranteed for everyone, along with the right to be cared for in retirement. How many elderly people don’t own their own homes, and have rent to pay as an additional expense making it harder for them to retire? Sure, landlordism can provide a source of income for people who can’t work, but for every case of that, there’s another case of someone who can’t work who doesn’t have the privilege of owning a home, such that the existing system makes them even more desperate. So logically, it doesn’t really make sense as a justification.

Cases like this should be considered when we’re looking at how best to implement our ideals, but not for determining our ideals in the first place. The just thing is that everyone should have a secure place to live. That’s the ideal. In implementing that ideal, we should consider that houses currently are used as a form of investment and many people simply use them that way without a second thought, because of social norms. If we simply seized and redistributed everyone’s properties tomorrow, some people like your aunt would be disproportionately affected, compared to if they had invested in stocks that can be just as unethical. It would probably still be better for most people than doing nothing, but we ought to craft policy in such a way that we’re not trolley probleming it (except regarding the people at the very top, for whom it’s unavoidable), but rather such that it provides benefits while harming as few people as possible.

When society is organized justly and the wealth of the people on the top is redistributed, there will be enough to go around that everyone ought to be able to benefit from it. Therefore, it shouldn’t be a problem to compensate small landlords for their properties and ensure that they aren’t harmed by any changes in policy.

Hey, you know who could actually help me know how to avoid getting my comments removed? The mod who removed my comment. You know, in that little space underneath the action in the modlog where they’re supposed to list the reason for removal? Well, the good news is they told me, and the reason that they told me is that they consider the information that I wrote to be false. So I have concluded that that’s the reason it was removed. Because the person who removed it told me so.

Then why was it removed for “misinformation” and not “being shouty?”

Ooh! Looks like we can add Havana Syndrome to the list of things you’re not allowed to question on .world. Is there anything the US government says that we’re allowed to doubt?

Yeah, full support for the Trump administration to have the power to say which social media is acceptable, that’ll fix everything! /s

I don’t understand why people think in these terms, “If you approve of violence being done by your side, you must also approve of violence done against your side.” I’m not taking a principled stand in favor of violence for violence’s sake. I support that which hurts the enemy and oppose that which hurts friendlies.

Stealing from the rich? Good. Stealing from the poor? Bad. Killing exploiters? Good. Killing the exploited? Bad. There’s no contradiction here because my stance is based on self-interest and the interest of my class, not on any sort of categorical moral claim about some particular form of action.