200
What hills are you dying on?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
200 points (89.4% liked)
Asklemmy
48257 readers
197 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
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
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
People without empathy shouldn't have the right to lead people (politics, work, ...).
There should be an upper limit to personal wealth.
Russia should be denuclearised and split up.
There's a vast difference between capability for empathy (as in: feeling someone else's feelings) and acting upon that feeling.
What I want is people NOT acting because they have empathy. That IMO would already be an enormous step forward.
The inclusion of the phrase "have the right to" is what changes this statement from sensible to nonsense. We'd need a way to declare who has that right, and I cannot imagine any idea of an empathy certification board that is not horrifically dystopian.
That's a good point, but I still think my point is valid, even if we do not yet have the technology to make it happen.
Rationality and empathy are equally important. Blind empathy is just as capable of causing harm as a lack of empathy.
The real issue is the relation one has/lacks with capital, not just individuals wealth.
Balkanization typically leads to more violence and worse outcomes. For example, the current situation in eastern Europe is a result of the balkanization of the USSR. WW1 (and 2) were a result of the Balkanization of the Ottoman empire. The balkanization of India.
Where did I say people without rationality should be elected lol.
The individual wealth that can destabilise democracies is a problem. Do you not think so? If your solution fixes that I'm all on board.
More violence in russia? Or more violence than russia trying to occupy europe again? I take the more violence in Russia because it will dtop one day, the uncheckef russian empire ambitions not so much.
I agree, but the hard part is how. Splitting up Germany required winning a World War. The next World War will be nuclear. Mass starvation from nuclear winter will result in the death of the vast majority of humans. That's too horrible a price to pay.
We need to bloody russias nose, and break their economy IMO. And be there when the cracks form to ease the maneuver a much as possible.