At least you’re smart enough to realize you’re putting a tyranny machine in charge of regulating tyranny machines…

A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, and for any individual that is part of the command structure who orders any attempt to committing mass killings including genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

It’s literally the first part of the definition.

If every “communist” government ever turned out to be authoritarian, you might want to ask yourself if there is some fundamental flaw in communism that makes it so it always turns out that way.

Also, Marx literally called for a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. If that isn’t authoritarian, then IDK what is.

Leftists LOVE to defend big government, particularly if it’s communist.

Meanwhile, communist governments are responsible for some of the worst man-made natural disasters in history.

https://thediplomat.com/2014/10/how-the-soviet-union-created-central-asias-worst-environmental-disaster/

https://www.cnsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-Environmental-Record-of-the-Soviet-Union.pdf

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/27/chinese-communist-party-environment-co2/

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/romanias-unsolved-communist-ecological-disaster/

Like I said…

And yes, I do condemn the Dresden Fire Bombing. Sure the Nazis were bad but wiping out thousands of innocent civilian lives like that was a war crime, nothing else.

Environmental destruction because of greed: inexcusable.

Environmental destruction because you don’t like those bastards over there: totally acceptable.

That’s cute, now do governments.

The problem with Tinder is that most women will use it to date wildly out of their league. If you’re in the top 10% of guys (good looks, money, etc.) you can choose between 10 women to go on a date with every single night, so of course there’s no reason for them to ever commit. Meanwhile, all of those women who are dating them are hoping they can get them to commit if they have sex, which of course doesn’t work, because why settle for one dish if you can have a buffet every day?

But after having had a taste of the top shelf, it’s difficult to go back to average, so now these women’s standards are totally overinflated. They think because they’ve slept with a top dog, it must be possible to marry him too, and so they won’t settle for someone in their own league, kinda like once you’ve had a steak at a $100 per plate restaurant, it’s difficult to go back to Outback or Sizzler.

So many of them end up wasting their best years chasing the alphas, and by the time they realize it’s not gonna happen, they’re in their mid-30s, have gained 50 pounds from all the post-breakup ice cream they ate, and all the guys who would have married them in their 20s have either settled for someone else, or developed a massive depression, mental illness, alcoholism, or killed themselves.

Well, if you ask any communist, they’ll tell you that real communism has never been tried, which implies that all other communists are fake.

Lemmy is made by actual communists, so let’s not pretend communism would somehow fix that.

In general, specialized disciplines (like law, medicine, science, etc.) tend to also use specialized words. I don’t think English is unique in that regard, other languages do this as well.

That’s not wrong.

Can confirm. My dad had a 386DX-40 when I got my hands on a copy of Doom, and it was a fucking slideshow at best.

Charity != welfare, but I don’t a liberal to know the difference.

The fundraiser has now received $5,214 out of the $3,000 requested, likely thanks to the exposure from the article (it was sitting at $1,920 at publishing time).

Schadenfreude, meet Streisand Effect.

Cool, that oughta pay for three months’ worth of food and rent in NYC

Calm down with your conspiracy theories

What types of poor decisions?

Poor decisions with regard to the use of their natural (i.e. God-given) talents. Nobody is ever going to make perfect decisions in all areas of their lives, and that’s not what Jesus requires, either. After all, the whole point of people having different talents is for them to work to together so they can complement each other’s abilities.

From the top level comment of the comment thread I read it as finance as that’s the thing related to food in the original post.

My point was merely to show that the biblical Jesus does in fact stop investing in people because he’s not seeing any results from them. It’s not really my fault if you’re reading in things about shareholder value or whatever, is it?

Supply Side Jesus on the other hand tells us that it’s not worth investing our time and resources into people who are poor, and that instead the rich will lead us to have an efficient church.

Yes, but remember that Supply Side Jesus is a caricature, and it’s created by exaggerating certain aspects of Jesus and diminishing others. But so is socialist Jesus, who only heals and feeds people for free and never asks for anything in return.

That is fundamentally backwards to Christianity, as it is the poor, the hurt and the suffering who need it the most.

I agree, and there are plenty of exhortations on that in the Gospel where Jesus reminds people to use their riches to take care of the poor among them. But he does not let the poor off the hook either, like in the story you mentioned earlier with the poor woman giving what little she has being more righteous than the rich man who donates very little. Meanwhile, proponents of socialist Jesus seem to think they should only ever receive blessings and not be asked to give anything back. They are like the guy in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, who had his debt forgiven by his master and then beat up his fellow man for owing him a fraction of that.

The long and short of it is that in order for the whole Jesus thing to work, you cannot just sit around all day and wait to be fed. You do at least have to make an effort to contribute something, however little it might me, otherwise you’re wasting your talents.

Good parents do.

Thanks for your response, but I don’t think I was promoting prosperity gospel? I understand that this parable is a favorite of theirs, but as you correct pointed out, there’s more to Jesus than that, and the point of the parable is by no means to rag on poor people, but on people who make poor decisions.

My understanding is that if someone has little talent but still makes the most of it, that person is still more welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven than someone who has a lot but makes little use of it. In other words, if it was the servant who received the most money who ended up burying it and making no profit, it would have been him who would be cast out instead. See also the Parable of the Wedding Feast, where everyone receives exactly the same (an invitation to the king’s wedding), but one person shows up without the proper clothes on.