I mean, we can dive into the specifics on each one of the points you made, because several of them are obviously misleading, but I don’t think that’s a good use of our time because…
If you don’t think Trump and Biden are equally shitty, then what is the argument? The debate is about whether or not voting matters. You’ve just said one candidate is shittier than the other, so I guess you prefer eating shit to taking an hour out of your worthless life to cast a vote?
Here’s a little sneak peak for ya: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/
What “massive devastation” did Biden cause? Be specific, please.
You’re falling for the all-or-nothing logical fallacy. You can bucket both Biden and Trump as being shitty, but that doesn’t mean they’re equally shitty.
You’ll need to provide sources for any of those claims. Ofc we should be skeptical of anything a corporation says, but Discord explicitly said they don’t use messages for age verification: https://discord.com/safety/how-discord-is-building-safer-experiences-for-teens. I’d be hard-pressed to believe that if that weren’t true there would be leaks.
But not voting, or voting for fascists, absolutely will never fix anything.
I think there are more accelerationists on this platform than you might realize.
You’re talking about emotional impact alone. Someone who lives with you, shares a bank account with you, and owns property with you obviously has more ability to control you and abuse you.
Granted, but my point isn’t necessarily that the magnitude matters. It’s the fact that judging something as a “romantic” relationships generates these gray lines that make moral discussions like this one so blurry. Many people have relationships that blur the lines between romantic and platonic.
Are you trying to claim someone cannot dilute someone else’s agency? that’s the whole problem with a power imbalance in a relationship, that your partner can use their power to isolate you from your agency.
No, but again, you can’t really draw a clean line around this problem. We all have diluted agency as a result of constantly taking in sense data: we’re products of our environments. I don’t think you can cleanly say that every relationship between a 44-year old man and a 19-year old woman is exploitative in nature. Or if you do believe that, wouldn’t you want to push for that to be codified as law? And if so, how would you codify it?
When did I say I wanted to do that?
Aren’t you implying it? It’s not as if Billy Corgan physically abducted Chloe Mendel. She willingly chose to become his partner. Either she’s wise enough and has enough agency to make decisions for herself, or she’s not. If it’s the latter, then you have to deal with the outcomes of that. I don’t buy that this is exclusively a “romantic relationship” problem. If the point is that 19-year olds are too ignorant to realize that a 44-year old man showing interest in them is “predatory,” surely that problem extends to other components of their agency.
That is a big “if” you are relying on. What if that 43 year old was love bombing them and telling you on the side that they were going to eventually leave them a broken mess? How often do you think these relationships are genuine compared to predatory. How do you tell the difference in the beginning?
Literally the person in this photo. They’ve been together for 13 years, right? I don’t know how you tell the difference in the beginning, but if you tell someone they can’t do it (which, you’re effectively doing by publicly shaming their relationship), then how many people are being deprived of a meaningful relationship. Why are you the arbiter of when someone has agency and when they don’t?
You can literally validate any abusive relationship with that same thinking because it’s made to exclude context.
Dang, I actually thought you were capable of critical thought until this comment. This isn’t about validating my argument, it’s about invalidating the argument that disgust is a reasonable tool for determining morality of an action. That’s one of your points, as evidenced in the next line.
When did I say they can’t be happy. What I said is that he is a disgusting and predatory man.
I guess I don’t understand your point at all then. You’re saying that even though Corgan is “disgusting and predatory,” his actions may well lead to happiness for him and the person he way “praying” on? On what planet does the word “pray” mean to make someone else happy? Oh no, I’m being prayed on by the compliment fairy! Keep it away!
I think you’re so focused on the older person here that you are failing to realize that you’re reducing the younger person to an automaton. The 19-year old is wise enough to make other life-changing choices: voting, taking out bank loans, making major purchases, choosing a career, choosing friends, deciding to take drugs, deciding to have an abortion, etc., but they’re not wise enough to decide whether or not it’s good for them to date someone who is older than them? I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too.
Some of you may die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
“Weathering the storm on foot” in your analogy means millions of people dying. You understand that, right?
Lol, they ignored every point I made, but I should have to address every bullshit point they make. That’s how the game works? They asked for an example of a war ending under a Democrat, I provided one, and then… crickets. Y’all are fucking clowns.
I didn’t say Carnegie wasn’t a massive asshole. You’re purposefully misreading my statements here.
It takes all of maybe an hour to go vote. The current administration is literally secret policing people off the streets and letting them rot and die in horrendous conditions. That’s likely very likely to stop now, but we’ll see.
The reality is that you’re just too intellectually lazy to investigate the differences between the parties. It’s not great that the choices are center-right and far-right, but center-right is objectively better than far-right if you’re a left-winger and not an accelerationist. Your lack of voting has a measurable, negative impact on the lives of other people, and you know it.
I mean, you can stop engaging any time you’d like, as well.
I can easily explain why fascism is bad to a Nazi. It would eventually ground out at some kind of fundamental difference in our world views. You could do the same here if you cared to, but you don’t.
The reality is that you don’t actually have a moral perspective here. You don’t actually have a problem with Corgan’s actions, you have a problem with his wife and enjoy slut shaming her. That’s the real reason white knights like you jump onto these posts and virtue signal for everyone. “Oh, the poor adult woman can’t possibly think for herself. She’s clearly a victim and a prostitute who is selling her body for access to wealth and power.” And then you’ll ofc, rightly, go on to defend sex workers.
You’re a fucking joke, bud. Zero critical thinking skills. Just whine and cry to everyone else that the mean Internet person is making valid points that you’re too fucking stupid to refute on your own.
So how old does a woman need to be in order to make decisions for herself? 25? 30? If your moral convictions here are so strong, then elucidate them.
I mean, sure, but those monied interests are in favor of secret police and mass surveillance. The other monied interests seem at least moderately sane. Like, I’m not gonna dome Mark Cuban or anything, but he’s a significantly less shitty person than Musk or Zuck. Andrew Carnegie built a shit-ton of libraries. I’d rather have us all involved in making those decisions, but I’ll take a barely-benevolent billionaire over the a sadistic dystopian nightmare one any day.
Speaking from personal experience, many of my non-romantic friendships have had as great or greater impact on my life than did my long-term romantic relationships. I don’t think that’s so uncommon.
But the impact isn’t really the point. The point comes back to agency. Does a 19-year old have agency? You’re effectively saying that they do not, because they’re easily manipulated by experience and material resources. I’m saying that, while that’s possible, it’s also possible that a 19-year old sees someone who is more experienced and has material resources and decides that’s a good enough reason to be in a romantic relationship. I mean, do you think sometime in the last 13 years that Chloe Mendel could have developed sufficient experience and material resources of her own such that she could have decided to leave? Or do you think that even as a 30-something woman she’s still being manipulated?
I don’t know if 18 is the right age to determine that someone is an adult, but I do think that once we draw that line, we can’t selectively decide what’s good and bad for them. I don’t think you can say an 18-year old shouldn’t be allowed to decide who they want to fuck while also saying they can vote and decide which politician gets to fuck us. Like, if you think a 19-year old is so easily manipulated, then they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they could be manipulated by some 44-year old into voting against their best interest, right? This is the slippery slope to which I was referring.
I understand the POV that people feel like a 19-year old is being taken advantage of. If a 43-year old started dating my 18-year old niece, I would be pretty disappointed. But if they were genuinely happy together, who am I to stand in their way? This is also the analogy to queer relationships: just because it elicits a disgust reaction in someone doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong. I understand your point is different here in that the power imbalance is the potential problem, and it’s an argument that has merit. But it’s also well within the spectrum of possibility that Mendel and Corgan are genuinely happy together, and who are you to tell them that they can’t be?
So, anyone who doesn’t hold the same opinion as you is a pervert and fan of sex trafficking. I see.
You’ll be shocked to learn that some 19-year old women can actually think for themselves. Gasp! And then 13 years later when they’re married to that person with children, would you tell a 32-year old woman with children that she was groomed? You don’t think she could have realized that at some point in the last decade-plus? Maybe she understood exactly what she was doing at the time and still does today.
Andrew Tate is a sex trafficker. Billy Corgan is a libertarian asshole. I personally have no desire to date someone that much younger than myself, though I have dated someone that much older than me and never felt “taken advantage” of.
But two consenting adults should be allowed to have a romantic relationship. I mean, where do you draw the line, exactly? Is 35 and 25 perverted? 35 and 24? How far do we go? Does it matter that the older person is a man? If it’s always the case that a 19-year old dating a 44-year old is a manipulative relationship, then it should be codified and made illegal, right? And if that’s not the case, then who the fuck are you to judge these people?
There’s no conspiracy here. You just can’t stand that someone would dare to question your claptrap and deprive you of precious Internet points.
Damn, poor Billy aged 6 years just so you could double-down on your ridiculous point.
But why stop at romantic relationships? Every relationship has the potential for manipulation. It’s only fair that 19-year olds only interact with other 19-year olds with similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Otherwise, they could be manipulated to do all manner of things!
Deflection and a claptrap. I expected nothing less.
If your daughter meets someone who makes her happy, shouldn’t you just be happy for her? You sound exactly like a conservative saying “Imagine if your daughter came home with a woman!” Maybe it’s not about you.
getting cutoff mid conversation after being asked who did you vote for
c/thathappened
False premise. “Reversing” what a prior administration did isn’t always possible, and sometimes isn’t necessary to move forward.
WRT foreign wars, the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan under Biden. His administration also handled the Ukraine situation about as well as anyone could have under the circumstances.
But look at the devastation that a second Trump administration has caused. Biden didn’t arm a secret police and tell them to arrest every brown-skinned person they saw. He didn’t kidnap the leader of a sovereign state. He didn’t start a needless war in the Middle East. And he didn’t completely trash our relations with our closest allies in Europe and North America.
Maybe I’m just feeding the trolls here, but this should be fairly obvious to any neutral observer: there’s a substantial difference between having an authoritarian cult leader as president and having a center-right dunce as president. Neither option is great, but don’t fall victim to the all-or-nothing logical fallacy.
I don’t know if Democrats will restart those programs. I think the realpolitik of what these midterms actually mean is that Trump is no longer a “kingmaker” in his party, and without that leverage he won’t have control over every Republican in congress. And because of that, he’s going to have to behave or risk getting removed or possibly worse.
I don’t know what the exact path forward is, but it’s not like nuclear weapons will disappear if the U.S. dissolves. There’s still inherent problems of the human condition that we have to continue to struggle with as a species, IMO. Even if we wipe out all of the existing imperialist states, more could – and IMO, would – arise unless we figure out how to solve some of those underlying problems.
In the meantime, I think it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that things have gotten better over time. This last vote was refutation of imperialism. They said themselves, it was a reflection of dissatisfaction with the imperialist war in Iran. If we don’t believe in democracy, then what do we believe in, exactly? Do we just cross our fingers and hope we get benevolent dictators? Granted it took far too long, but the imperialist country did eventually give up slavery. Racism has objectively decreased over time. A smaller portion of the world dies from starvation and preventable disease. The world is getting better over time. The past 10 years have been a shitshow, but the median person is certainly better off today than they were 100 years ago.