Doubledee [comrade/them]

Oh no, I definitely believe the US is especially bad. I didn’t claim otherwise. Good luck though.

Name a large country that doesn’t have mass civilian casualties in it’s past.

Is the argument supposed to be that everyone else is also bad so it doesn’t matter? Because I don’t agree with that reasoning, you can still find something objectionable even if other bad stuff also happens.

The guys who conducted experiments for Japan on living Chinese victims are also bad. The guys who armed and equipped the Taliban are also bad. The people that trained and armed the Contras, very bad. The guys who build weapons for Israel are also bad. It’s not a contradiction, there are plenty of other people who also have earned some sort of just retribution for the things they enabled.

I didn’t draw the US out of my hat, they came up because of the article in the link.

If you really want to put the US in a bad light you should mention that the US did a hell of a lot more damage to Japanese cities with conventional bombs than nukes.

Of course. I’m not the one who was saying only everyone else’s nuclear weapons matter, though, you’re the one who needs to prove that somebody else has a worse record on this. You can’t do that though so you’re pivoting to… I guess yeah they also killed a lot of civilians with conventional weapons? I’m not disputing that though, I think most of the people the US kills are killed with conventional weapons. My original point was that the US goes around hurting humanity because it is an unquestionable nuclear power. The nukes are deterrence to keep everyone else in line.

You might also want to consider that the question of whether Japan actually had non-combatants is debatable.

Or that I guess, can’t kill civilians if all the children in Hiroshima were combatants? Yeah that’s a sane approach, definitely makes the US position seem really reasonable.

That kind of logic can justify unlimited violence. It’s not debatable that civilians lived in Japan.

Look, I know you’re defensive of your country or whatever. But this is really some wild justification you’re attempting here, at the point where the defense is “everyone committed mass murder but also it’s possible that every single person in two cities deserved to be vaporized by a nuclear bomb” we need to take a step back and reconsider how we got here.

Or I’m just edgy and misinformed or whatever. But I think you’re relying on a lot of canned lines and not thinking about what happened in a neutral light. If anyone else (say, Israel? Saudi Arabia?) claimed they could kill everyone in an area because there weren’t any civilians we would all recognize that for what it is.

You are not misinformed because you don’t have access to the correct information, you are misinformed because you choose to be myopic because you think that makes you edgy or clever.

I think we just disagree about what the US is justified in doing to the rest of the world. I’m trying to meet you partway here but my guess is this is the actual divide and there’s not really anything I could argue that would affect that belief you have.

Lol okay, don’t dispute any of it that’s fine, guess they didn’t nuke civilians.

Other people need nukes because the US has them and demonstrated that it is willing to use them on civilians. Other countries have nuclear arsenals because that’s the only way to stop yanks from going and mounting a campaign that kills a million people or more in their region. Building nuclear weapons for the American military is objectively bad for the world. I didn’t say anything about Russia.

Oh I meant the impunity that being a nuclear power has given the US to exterminate humanity since WWII, a project it has carried out more or less continuously since they first got and used nuclear weapons on civilians.

Damn you mean I spent my career giving madmen the ability to exterminate humanity with impunity and now the madmen decided I won’t get easy access to medical care?

For sure, there’s an unhealthy internet thing of just hating stuff, I hope it’s obvious I’m not doing that. I actually think the books for younger kids are overall better and a lot of the worst stuff could have been avoided if she just stuck to writing fun mysteries for children. She was pretty good at snarky irreverent kid stuff.

The biggest fans in my life hate the epilogue too, so you’re in good company there.

It’s literally in the book. Harry becomes a wizard CIA agent. They still have slaves at the end. The book ends with Harry wondering if his chattel slave will bring him food. They don’t help the muggles, they don’t rectify the injustice of their tiered society.

I think the anti fascist angle is a nice thing to get from it but it’s not really supported by the text. Riddle is ontologically evil for no reason, he’s bad Dumbledore. Dumbledore controls the entire society and can act with impunity. I don’t even think all this stuff is intentional. It’s just not that deep.

No her issue is with those people because they aren’t competent. None of the issues that make the ministry an evil neo liberal monstrosity are fixed by the heroes who enter the government and maintain it. The books suck as political texts.

Hey I know you’re getting a bunch of responses so I don’t want to be unhelpful and pile on, but I am curious if you actually dispute either of the claims this meme makes (Churchill blaming the famine on India, Mao personally taking steps to cut his consumption during a famine and being critical of his own policy). Because if you don’t think it’s wrong I’m not sure why you are posting this response. The Chinese don’t care if you vote for Churchill or Mao, neither are even candidates for election in the United States. This could not be less about what you’ve posted.

Most of those people were more concerned about the genocide.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.