Ah, I see where the miscommunication happened. Only my first response was a defence of them, and only as far as the comment you were responding to. Their opinions are theirs and mine are mine.

I don’t think a general strike is a remotely plausible possibility, it simply requires more labour organisation and willingness endure hardship than what currently exists. Me going into hypotheticals and theoreticals is based on this. You’re right that If it were somehow we’re to happen, the suffering would be immense and I don’t know of any remotely realistic goal that it could achieve that would justify it. There’s a lot wrong with society but I don’t see how bringinging it all to a stop would do much to help.

The main point I initially tried to make(but got very sidetracked from) is that just because someone is advocating for a course of action that causes harm in persuit of a goal, it doesn’t mean they are ignorant or uncaring of the harm. But rather that they believe that the end justifies the means.

Sorry for the confusion.

I’m not expecting anything, I’m talking entirely theoretically. I’m not asking anyone to do anything, I’m speculating on what I would do in that situation.

If I’m in a situation where I’m solving the trolley problem by equation, which track I’m on is not a factor. Or to put it as simple as I can. If I had to be one of those who die, it would not change my thoughts on what would be acceptable.

You are completely missing my point. Firstly, just because I consider something acceptable doesn’t mean I think that it’s okay. It’s more that If action or inaction on a problem causes the same amount of suffering and death, then I believe that action with the hope of a good resolution is the better course.

Let me phrase it in terms of the trolley problem. Just because I would calculate to take the least shitty course of action does not mean I’m uncaring of the outcome. I would simply be forced to play the hand that I’m dealt. And like I said, the problem of US healthcare is not mine to fix. So I can only speculate on what I might do without having to face the potential reality of action.

So what about you? Would you choose action causing harm to stop it later, or inaction and do nothing to mitigate the present harm?

There’s no course of action available in which people won’t suffer and die. In an ideal world that would not be so, but we must face reality however shit it may be.

People dying of treatable conditions does bother me, it’s one of the main reasons I’m disgusted with the state of healthcare in the US.

As many as 44,789 people in the US die each year from lack of health insurance.

I’m under no illusions when it comes to the limitations of mutual aid, it’s not a replacement for a functioning society. It’s far more a foundation of a strong labour movement and sense of community.

The hypothetical being talked about here is a general strike. I know full well that not having access to healthcare kills people. I’d also like to specify that I’m not advocating for a general strike, I was speculating on the justifivuof those who are.

And to answer your your final point I’d like to refer back to the 44,789 people who die every year from a lack of health insurance in the US. Now attempting to bring about radical changes would most certainly cause more deaths than that, but you asked for a number. So if I could change things for the better without killing more people than those who are currently dying under the current system then I would consider that acceptable. So there’s your number, 44,789 people dying per year to achieve the goal of universal healthcare in the US. I however live in a country that already has universal health care, so I thankfully wouldn’t have to make such a grim decision. It’s easy to engage in such calculations without having to have the emotional burden of potentially condemning thousands to suffer and die.

So for how much longer would you consider it acceptable for the current system to cause more suffering and death before drastic actions for change are acceptable?

It seems you care more about those who would be hypothetically be harmed than those who are being harmed right now.

I don’t think that those who advocate for mutual aid networks and a general strike are either ignorant or uncaring of the harm that it could cause. I think they believe that the harm caused would be less than the harm already being inflicted by the current system. That said, I think it’s a big ask for people to put themselves and their families at great risk, even if it’s for a good purpose.

I’ll accept that argument as long as they are normal women who wear cat themed accessories and act like a cats. But if we’re talking full anime cat human hybrids, then I’m afraid you’re in furry town.

As opposed to your stance which is fuck people who don’t want to have their language massively rewritten. I think it’s far more reasonable to make individual accomodations for the non-binary folks that we interact with and accept that language has limitations and can’t be changed overnight.

None of that relates to this murder as based on the description of settler concerns, which are more of an issue in the West Bank rather than Gaza, I’m guessing that this happened in the West Bank. (Where Hamas is not the government.)

Whether the murderers are IDF or settler militants is immaterial to the point of this being an unjustified killing of a Palestinian shepherd living in the West Bank, who is rather unlikely to be a Hamas fighter or involved in the 7th October attack.

How does the atrocities of Hamas relate to the murder of a Palestinian shepherd?

I think I may have watched too many ‘unwholesome’ videos, but to me that face could be seen in a different way.

Definitely a cute and happy face though. The onion is just having a great time.

Actually Hammas is spread by contact. If you touched someone who lived next door to someone who’s family dog was given to them by someone who had a family member join Hamas, then you become Hamas too.

The only way to innoculate yourself against this pathogen is by loudly and vigorously condemning Hamas for at least two minutes a day.

It should however be noted that condemning Hamas, and having absolutely no affiliation with any of their members provides no protection against Israeli forces mistaking you for a Hamas fighter and subsequently shooting/bombing/starving you to death.

Damn trainsesual agenda, wanting better rail infrastructure.

Not anymore, there’s a blanket.

You get sentenced to a lifetime of Dell.

But it comes with your choice of meme.

Well if you want to execute billionaires then I’m not going to stand in your way. But I absolutely oppose having civil courts ordering death sentences.

Why is the police even involved in this. Unless the book in question is banned by law, or at least a court order, then there’s no reason for the police to be involved.

This is one more case of the police overstepping their authority.

Removed by mod

If the government has even the smallest modicum of dignity, he’ll resign or be sacked. It’s one thing to enjoy crass and offensive jokes, I certainly do, but there’s a time and a place for such humour. I mean he’s the Home Secretary for fucks sake! How in the world did he think that that kind of joke would go down well?

I’ve seen first hand the aftermath of someone’s drink being spiked… It’s not something I ever want to deal with again. Though I’ll bet it was far worse for the unfortunate victim of it.

I guess we’ll have to just lock him up while we figure out some way of stopping him committing cybercrime. If only there were some way of preventing him from committing this crime that requires access to a computer to commit. I guess he’ll just have to stay trapped in a phyche ward until society can figure this one out.

Sorry for being snarky and sarcastic, I know what you mean and agree with you. My sarcasm is directed more at the judges ruling and your comment is just what sparked me to write it.