So now we've veered into full-blown Malthusianism. You can't treat human populations the way you treat animal populations. More humans means more people working and growing food, whereas animals simply graze or hunt on preexisting resources. Malthusian claims have been thoroughly debunked repeatedly throughout history, and have never been backed by any sort of evidence whatsoever.

Again, if you choose to reject history and evidence in favor of knee jerk defending colonialism and using long discredited theories, then I don't really see what I can do here. You are simply wrong and in contradiction of scholarly work on the subject.

Denial of evidence

You mean thinking critically and doing due diligence into investigating sources as opposed to blindly accepting anything you're told without question? Yes, that is a certified tankie tactic.

I simply cannot believe that "AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world" would have a brain-meltingly bad take like this. Shocking.

Where do you think the meat on your plate comes from? What do you think causes meat production to increase?

And yet, still zero evidence 🤔

I'm glad that the US has suddenly started caring about labor rights and the well-being of Muslims, and I'm sure that it's just pure coincidence that it happens to be aligned with criticizing and fear-mongering it's largest competitor.

There are plenty of poor countries with worse conditions than China. Major multinational corporations set up shell corporations to run their sweatshops and if they get exposed they say, "We had no idea," maybe pay a tiny fine, then set up another company to do the exact same thing. Many of these countries are in the US's sphere of influence, and many have to sign away control of their own domestic policies as a condition for entry into the global marketplace, while their resources, stolen by force by colonizers, remain in foreign hands.

Why isn't the US concerned about their labor conditions? I'll tell you why: because one of those cases means giving more money to rich corporations in the form of defense contracts, and the other means restricting the ability of rich corporations to exploit the poor. All the bombs the US is building will do nothing to improve the conditions of anyone living in China, while there are plenty of people who the US could be lifting out of poverty if it cared to.

The sudden decline in relations was not because the whole US just woke up one day and decided to start caring about the conditions of laborers in China, which used to be much worse than today. Don't feed me that nonsense.

A distinction without a difference. Whether explicitly bourgeois parties or not, the Nazis and SPD were both vehemently opposed to the ideology of the KPD, and those two parties received a majority of the votes in the 1932 election.

Yes, and that's why Hindenburg won and appointed Hitler.

And do, still. By the millions, in every election. Or, at least, if not explicitly bourgeois parties, parties that are based on some form is liberal ideology, not necessarily in opposition to bourgeois interests, and that often are aggressively opposed to Marxism-Leninism.

Yes, which is unfortunate and concerning, especially as the bourgeoisie tend to ally with the far-right to stop the left, which brought Hitler to power which is happening now with the CDU and the AfD, as pointed out in the article linked at the start of the conversation.

I intend to vote for a third party.

I know that you think I'm throwing a childish fit. That's because, fundamentally, you don't consider Palestinians to be human beings, just as your kind didn't see Iraqis or Afghans as human when they were being slaughtered. To you, this is just some random pet issue I've taken up to feel good about myself. But it's not. I have nothing but hatred for Biden and people like him, and I have incredibly good reason for that. "Genocide" isn't just a word, it's not something to be casually brushed aside. It must be opposed, everything else be damned. If you genuinely attempted to see the world from their perspective, you would understand.

Someday the democrats will decide that us trans people are too much of a liability and throw us under the bus too, and you'll rationalize it by placing us in the exact same subhuman category you use whenever they murder a million people in the Middle East. Call me childish all you want, you're just telling on yourself about how seriously you take their deaths.

Well, if not voting for Trump counts as supporting him, then rest assured that Biden will have my "support."

I'm not lifting a finger to help either of them. If Trump wins, it'll be because the Democrats nominated that senile, genocidal corporate sycophant. It's their job to win elections, not mine. I've heard you people try to shift all blame away from your shitty party and onto the left a thousand times before. You're wasting your time. As I said, I don't give a shit. Fix the party, win without me, or lose. Your choice, I've made mine.

Nope. There is no reasoning with me on this, my position is absolute and set in stone. You want my vote, get a better candidate. No other option, period.

They will flinch first. And if they don't, then we'll go to hell together. You're wasting your time with me.

Sounds like we need to organize more to get better information. Also, what is this I found? https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx Looks like a poll that supports 3rd party candidates without committing to vote on them.

Well then, seeing as that poll shows 63%, I assume you're voting third party with everyone else then, right? Because that's apparently how you think the world works.

Stop giving me this nonsense and come back down to reality.

Are they subject to more scrutiny? What oversight do they have now that they didn't have then? What protections do whistleblowers have when they come out? What consequences do they face if illegal activities are exposed?

Not all of their shady activity was "loud and crazy." The CIA covered up their involvement in Operation Ajax, the 1953 coup against Iran's peaceful and democratic government, until 2013. There are countless examples like that.

The point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate why the principle of lesser evilism is incorrect. Not every deal has to be exactly equal, the question is what to do when offered a terrible deal when the other party needs you just as much as you need them, and the answer is to bargain even if it means a risk of the deal falling through.