How do you feel about financing a genocide?
How do you feel about financing a genocide?
I didn't want to direct this question to Americans specifically because, at this point, other countries have shown support to Israel in one or the other way. If my country was financing this, I would be taking the streets. Shit, I'm right now in the hospital but all I can think about is protesting anyway just to feel I did something to stop this madness.
Are you doing something about this? Are you feeling unsettled? How do you feel about all this mess?
EDIT: So, buying Chinese stuff takes the USS Gerald Ford to Gaza’s coast. Also, TIL that that chocolate my cousin gave me when she was 20 and I was 5, (delicious stuff!) made me a slavist-ish. The fact remains, this genocide is being paid and supported by taxpayers money; of course, I was hoping that most of us didn’t pay taxes wishing for this. Thank you all for your responses, some of them were hard to swallow.
You're viewing a single thread.
Also please remember that Europe purchased nearly the entirety of products produced by slaves in the Americas.
If there were no European market there would have been little incentive for American slavery.
I guess the slave free northern states also purchased their fair share, but nothing compared to Europe.
It's almost like capitalism fosters slavery, weird 🤔
Actually no. Capitalism is based on free markets and slaves aren’t involved in the market freely. If the market includes people in chains who haven’t consented to be involved, it’s not a free market.
Tell me you know nothing about economics without saying, "I know nothing of economics".
But... the invisible hand...!
What is this “invisible hand” thing people keep referring to?
It's a term used by one of the big economic thinkers associated with capitalism, or a version of it. It basically means the markets 'correct' themselves, merely by existing. It can be summed up as the collective actions of consumers and sellers setting prices for products/goods/services, rather than those same things being dictated by fiat.
Actually, no, different people use the word "capitalism" to mean different and sometimes incompatible things.
But only right-libertarians use it to mean "a free market in which all people's individual rights are always respected"; which is why when right-libertarians say something about "capitalism" absolutely everyone else gets weirded out.
For a contrary example, in my usage, "capitalism" emphasizes the role of finance capital (roughly: shareholders) in choosing which economic activities will get funding; and secondarily the tendency of governments to support established financial interests. "Capitalism" in this sense didn't exist prior to the development of privately financed colonial projects; it was the difference between Spanish colonialism (funded by the monarchy; see e.g. Columbus) and Dutch and English colonialism (funded by private investors through state-created corporations; see the various East and West India Companies).
In my view, many people say "capitalism" where they really mean something like "scarcity" or "greed" or "status competition", all of which existed long before historical capitalism. Merchants have jacked up prices in response to scarcity long before there were capital markets; and people in many historical non-capitalist societies still competed on the basis of wealth and prosperity.
Well wikipedia also defines it based on free markets.
If you don’t think that’s a valid definition of capitalism you ought to argue your point over there.
You can mean whatever you want when you say capitalism. I use the definition where free markets are a characteristic.
There really was a major change in trade and fortune with the advent of capital investment at a particular point in history, beginning in northern Europe and especially in the investment markets of Amsterdam and London. This is what a lot of people mean by "capitalism", and if you want to understand the things they say, it will help you if you don't pretend they mean something else.
If I had to name one defining property of "capitalism", it would be that an investor can trade shares in a venture managed by someone else, without thereby taking on either management responsibility or financial liability for the downsides of that venture. This was the financial innovation that made Northern European colonialism possible, and it is maintained to the present day in the form of stock markets.
Capital-ism is about making capital (money from investors) available to ventures (businesses; startups; colonial voyages). It doesn't necessarily mean free speech or even free trade. It means freedom for capital, not necessarily for you.
Permanently Deleted
Oh yeah, and you know the justification for indigenous peoples being granted their land back because their ancestors used to live there, and they were removed?
That's the exact same situation for Israel. The Jews used to live in Israel until they were kicked out.
Let that complicate your morality.
Did no one live on that land before the Jews? How about we just get rid of countries, borders and religious claims to lands? How about as transient beings crossing through reality at a pace that barely even registers on the geologic timeline, we just give up this whole idea of possessing everything for that short blip of existence?
Or, you know, lets not and just keep wasting this precious little time we have playing land murder roulette.
The ancestors of the Jews first settled there. It was then the Romans and the Muslims that did the oppression and genocide.
I'm not sure why you think a geologic time scale matters here. These are human issues that only exist on human time scales.
Your abolishment of boundaries and countries is also a very simplistic world view. You assume that there are no bad actors, but there always will be.
Without countries there would be no government. Without government, you can't stop the strong from obliterating the weak.
According to the bible, the jews took the land (with the help of orbital strikes from “God”) from other people who lived there.
There were certainly people there before them just as there were people after. I find that viewing things on a larger scale than we live on helps us appreciate that the world does not belong or yield to us. It was there before we walked it and it will be here after were gone, so the flawed view that any one people has a right or claim is to me personally laughable. It was viewed similarly by those indigenous people you spoke of.
Countries don't stop bad actors and they don't protect the weak. They protect the interests of the ruling class and provide means of control. In this very situation it would appear that nothing is stopping the obliteration of Gaza. Boundaries, countries, walls and the like are just means to segregate and divide. It could be racially, economically, religiously. Whatever you like. As long as we keep propping up these institutions we will never get any closer to peace and unity on those human scales you're so concerned with.
Governance doesn't need to be tied to borders or countries just as hierarchies don't need to be organized vertically.
It was then the Romans and the Muslims that did the oppression and genocide.
When did the Muslim-world commit genocide against Jewish people? The medieval Muslim-world was a safe haven for Jewish communities - as opposed to Christendom... you know - the place where antisemitism originates from?
Your abolishment of boundaries and countries is also a very simplistic world view.
I'd say that fetishizing lines drawn on a map is a pretty simplistic thing in itself.
Without government, you can’t stop the strong from obliterating the weak.
So your solution is to allow the strong a government so that they can obliterate the weak even more easily?
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Why am I actually responding to a comment that is saying muslims don't want to exterminate Jews.
Sure the liberal ones don't, but wtf?
Why am I actually responding to a comment that is saying muslims don’t want to exterminate Jews.
Let me guess... you're a product of the US education system?
You don't have the foggiest idea of the history you are feigning expertise in here, do you?
Sure the liberal ones don’t, but wtf?
What "liberals," Clyde? The only Palestinian "liberals" you will find are the corrupt lapdog racketeers "managing" the West Bank at the behest of Israel. If Hamas takes them out, very few Palestinians will lose any sleep over it... and rightly so.
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
דְּבָרִים
טז רַק, מֵעָרֵי הָעַמִּים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה--לֹא תְחַיֶּה, כָּל-נְשָׁמָה יז כִּי-הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִימֵם, הַחִתִּי וְהָאֱמֹרִי הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי, הַחִוִּי, וְהַיְבוּסִי--כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יח לְמַעַן, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יְלַמְּדוּ אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת, כְּכֹל תּוֹעֲבֹתָם, אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם; וַחֲטָאתֶם, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.
Permanently Deleted
I didn't express an opinion. I said that morality is complex.
But I’ve never seen any calls for indigenous people to get their land back.