Asklemmy

43891 readers

782 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-3

Do you think it would be understandable/alright to be discriminatory towards people who identify with a world culture if that culture ended up declaring nuclear war and going through with the threats? (lemm.ee)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's no secret I'm on the misanthropy spectrum, but as such a person you could say that about, I wanted to ask this ever since hearing this conveyed in response to recent events which sees three spheres of influence now arguably possessing the potential to deliver on such promises. Like... what's the deal?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To reframe it, could you say why you think it would be okay to discriminate against a person you don't know because they share a cultural (and not necessarily political) association with a country they may or may not be a member of? And more specifically, what positive outcome there would be from that discrimination as opposed to protesting the actions and decision makers involved?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I've clarified a few times here, it's not a stance I have, just one I've seen and saw as tempting enough to ask about. Their logic goes, if A) nuclear assault is a step above normal warfare, and B) normally all countries/ethnicities/cultures are equal and not below one another on the basis that that we all have equal potential both good and bad, and C) we live in a world that found a way to justify witch hunts, the red scare, and cancel culture, then D) a country that does engage in nuclear strikes would (according to the logic) mark a civilization as being humanly lower than other peoples and thus it wouldn't be unfair to have a cancellation-or-red-scare-style approach to it and use it as a force of consequentialism against the nation in question having engaged in nuclear assault in order to bring a downpour of shame upon the nation that carried it out.

My problem with it is exactly what yours is, though I don't disagree with doing something about those directly connected to the act.