This thread picked a fight with me, the OP is literally calling me evil.

Then you continued the fight, with "uncompromising shrieks” and “absurd” and “childish.”

Then I fight back and you cry about me picking fights.

Talking to you is self harm. Blocked.

Libya was once the most prosperous country in Africa, after the murder of Gaddafi it collapsed into ruin and now has an open slave market. It’s basically in an ongoing low-level civil war, with two different governments claiming control over the country. This is why there are people dying in the Mediterranean trying to escape.

I really hope you just didn’t know.

I call people fascists when they support genocide, and I am not willing to compromise on it.

I’m honestly a little baffled

Oh look at that, you’re talking down to me again. It’s fine when you do it, though. It’s only a problem when I respond.

“venezuela should NOT be run by nicolas maduro”

Is Libya better off without Qaddafi?

This conversation started with you calling people like me “uncompromising shrieks” and it has continued with you calling people like me “absurd” and “childish.” But, when I push back, it’s all “we don’t need that” and “I don’t appreciate it”.

If you can beat up on me but I have to be nice back, I don’t really see the point of this conversation. Very .world behavior.

Calm down? I have no idea what you mean.

I gave the example of felony murder to show that this isn’t just some exaggerated, non-standard way to judge crimes. It’s not just a US thing, it comes from common law. There’s similar law in Australia and Canada as well, and though it’s no longer practiced officially in the UK there’s the concept of “joint enterprise” whereby being involved in a murder still imputes criminal liability with similar legal outcomes.

It’s not a world-wide way to conceive of crime, but it’s pretty normal. Hardly an exaggeration.

Besides, is it so unreasonable to apply legal standards from the US to Parties within the US?

If I give a gun to someone and they kill someone knowing their intent beforehand, I’m guilty by association. Why is that not enough?

Because if you didn’t give them a gun, they wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people.

If the number of people they can kill on their own is X, and the number of people they can kill with your help is X+1, then you killed that +1 even if you didn’t pull the trigger. They only died because you helped, which means you killed them

If you knowingly help plan and facilitate a murder by your actions, you are a murderer. This is how most people view murder.

You’re the odd one out. I just think you should know that.

Fascinating. You realize no one thinks this way, right? There’s a reason for that.

If you facilitate the murder weapon and then protect the murderer from consequences so they can keep killing, you are just as guilty of murder as if you held the gun yourself. That’s how felony murder charges work. If there’s a shootout during a robbery and someone dies, the getaway driver still gets a murder charge despite not holding one of the guns. Where’s the exaggeration?

Yeah, “civilians removed from a dangerous potential combat zone” doesn’t sound as nefarious.

Would you say the same thing about Republicans and Trump? They’re not the ones firing the guns either.

Democrats have a really important role in supporting the Palestinian genocide, what are you even talking about?

Do you think Biden was actually working tirelessly for a ceasefire? Come on. It’s a bipartisan project!

So, what’s the non-authoritarian alternative that you support? Because Democrats, Labour, etc are all pro-surveillance, pro-incarceration, pro-war, and pro-genocide. But when I point this out I’m doing purity tests! Isn’t that funny? I think it’s funny. Not like ha-ha funny, but like, there’s an absurdity to the fact that my criticisms are purity testing but yours are “reasonable.”

You haven’t had a problem because your politics align with .world - it’s a good match. You’re allowed criticism within a set of safe boundaries that do not challenge power. If you start talking about not voting for Democrats, though, they get a lot more hostile.

Same.

Now, explain why a “tankie” isn’t merely a leftist that failed one of your purity test.

Meanwhile, Rule #2 for this community seemingly doesn’t exist.

Why did you even leave Reddit?

What I’ve learned is that Reddit.world allows for rule breaking as long as you’re punching left, but if you’re the one being beat on and you defend yourself you’ll be banned for wrongthink.

Landlords are middle men between tenant and the earth. But they are not middle men between consumers and commercial tenants.

And commercial tenants can’t access customers without the landlord.

Face it, they’re middle men.

Landlords are middle men.

Is Amazon not a middle man? In many cases you’re buying directly from the seller, just like at a farmer’s market. Amazon, like a farmer’s market, exists to facilitate trade between sellers and buyers. It just collects rents.

Do you think those things mean something isn’t a middle man?

The cost of putting the market together is always going to be higher than selling out of a van. Bigger venue, higher costs. It’s worth it for the increased sales, but the middle man still gets a cut. Even if there’s no profit, even if the cut is fair, there’s still a cut.

i.e. a middle man

A farmer could set up a stand outside their driveway and advertise on Facebook, but the farmer’s market middle man acts as a go between to handle logistics and advertising and customer availability and creates a safe marketplace for customers and vendors.