ThermonuclearEgg [she/her, they/them]

https://readsettlers.org/

“Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.” — Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy

This user is a white American and wishes to apologize for the direct benefit received from slavery, imperialism, etc. Please criticize accordingly

  • 6 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 28th, 2024

help-circle













  • I knew that telling you that I don’t want any aid for Israel wouldn’t stop you from trying to convince me.

    I don’t care if you’re convinced, but I would like to know if this is because you think what is happening there is some degree of morally unacceptable, or if you just think the money would be better spent at home.

    Edit:

    You don’t have to respond to this but this is for the benefit of others reading.

    I agree that the distinction between defensive and offensive aid is little more than a rhetorical trick, but that’s a long ways from being a “genocide apologist”. To my knowledge, she does not deny that Israel is committing a genocide, and she does not pretend that it’s justified.

    In AOC’s case, you have claimed she believes it is a genocide. If she does in fact believe it is a genocide, then she is providing material support (money and weapons), directly to what she believes is a genocide. She is a member of Congress and could use that position to passively sit by with an ineffective protest no vote or even voting present/abstaining in every instance (although you could still argue someone like this should at least be doing more personally, in the end, policies are what matter for elected officials), to what she believes is an actual genocide. Thus, “genocide supporter” logically follows.

    If she does not believe it is a genocide, but she thinks it is morally problematic, then while perhaps the label “genocide supporter” could be put into slight contention (those that read Israeli officials’ own statements such as this one 2 months ago on the matter would probably ask how AOC came to another conclusion), it is still in turn problematic that she would materially support something that she believes is morally problematic, and you should find this unacceptable.

    If on the other hand, she does not find anything morally problematic there at all, but you think it is at minimum morally unacceptable, then isn’t that a legitimate criticism of an elected official who is supposed to represent her constituents to say that you think they are supporting something that you find to be morally unacceptable?


  • ThermonuclearEgg [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.nettoScience Memes@mander.xyzUh oh lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I know you can’t see this comment but maybe someone else will find it useful

    Just like how a siren changes pitch when it’s coming from a vehicle passing by due to the Doppler effect, the same thing happens to moving light sources due to relativistic effects.

    Usually astronomical objects are redshifting because the universe is expanding and are thus receding away from Earth’s frame of reference. Most of them are forever unreachable even if we could travel at the speed of light.

    Something blueshifting means it’s coming closer from Earth’s frame of reference. In some cases, this could result in the galaxy colliding with ours, such as the hypothesized collision between the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way