I just asked someone with knowledge if I could have some. Is the comment not in direct regard to the headline, historical revisionism by the current government? The term “right wing” would seem directly in regards to current events. I just assumed they might be politically up to date given their opinions on the headline. It seems extremely difficult to get straight answers on the questions I asked given how politically charged they are.

Please explain.

So I’ve been following events in Argentina since we haven’t seen a true An-Cap since the 40s. I’ve been trying to follow events since the election and there’s definitely been alot of boat rocking for better or worse. You seem like you have strong opinions hopefully based on sound evidence. So, if you could, could you talk a bit about your perspective and how policy has changed and affected the country? Or otherwise refer me to a reliable source. What is Milei’s deal? What supposed benefits are there and are any genuine? Has the country fallen into dictatorship? Is he genuinely the popular candidate? Other than An-Cap policies what other “far right” things is he accused of? Anything especially heinous or redeeming from our liberal democratic perspectives? What kind of power does he have over the state given whatever their constitution is like? Or is it followed at all?

I suppose it’s a bit callous of me to just want to know as a point of interest and nothing more but I find it so damn fascinating. How often do we really get something different in this world?

Alright drop an n bomb in a meta context and see how that goes.

This is obviously bait guys, calm down. This dude is parodying the stereotype of women doing similar on dating apps and exposing a double standard.

OP asks why

downvoted to 2/17

I’m just finding out lemmy is crazy for this. Earlier today a guy got brigaded and later post removed because he suggested that people use the mods to sanitise the forum of any dissenting opinion.

I myself made a comment suggesting that “both-siderism” is really a matter of perspective and people should question their leaders rather than continue to choose the lesser of two evils, remaining in a constant state of fear. I asked why people felt that way to a similar result.

Now you have very reasonably tried your hand at reasonable compromise to a similar result.

How is any of this espousing the virtues of democracy?

Lemmy isn’t reddit all over again, it’s worse.

Are you ok bud? How’s your day going? Maybe have a short walk outside to calm down?

I just hought that given that you seem to have such a problem you’d care to explain beyond:

"But do be sure to tell the kids that think both sides are equally as bad because of a single issue.

Especially when both are equally to blame on said single issue."

You’ll note that both sentences are short a valid subject.

Do tell, try to use small words for my foreign brain.

I am one of those people and I’d like to explain the ideology because I think most people write or listen to little tid bits on the internet and never really understand where we are coming from.

To you these sides seem vastly different in the same way that any two people are so, so different and unique. However those same two people are biologically 99% similar. A difference in perspective causes this misunderstanding.

In my country it is compulsory to vote and I gladly take the fine every few years because I reject the Westminster system, that is to say I reject bicameral representative government. So when I say they are the same it is because from my perspective they are the same, the world will continue on 99% the same 99% of the time whoever wins regardless of how people freak out about it.

South Park has a startlingly appropriate episode to describe this situation; what to do when faced with the choice between a douche and a turd? The only moral answer is do not vote and protest the system, hope enough others can participate with you and hope your ideology can gain enough traction to prevent any government from attaining a legitimate mandate to govern.

Most who disagree only want you to vote for their guy.

I got it to work

The prompt was “make me a funny picture I can bait people into arguing over”

Guys doesn’t it seem a little more likely that this ai is more likely to have been tampered with in some fashion as opposed to the astoundingly unlikely occurrence of it coming across one of the astoundingly rare instances of non racially European European nobility and producing like 10 back to back fabrications of non racially eruopean nobility (I’ve seen the post op is talking about)?

I think it might be more likely that whoever had prompted the ai is hoping to create a fuss and you are all being duped by engaging with their tomfoolery.

Perhaps it is best not to engage in such needless adversarialism.

I don’t want to be rude but the sentiments expressed here present a double standard that excuses Japanese war crimes.

Point by point:

“Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in retaliation for US’s oil embargo.” This is a somewhat correct statement but omits context vital to the decision making. The Imperial Japanese armed forces had formulated 2 plans for imperial expansion, one into the south and one into the north. The “retaliation for oil embargo” argument is a fabrication of the Japanese military class, a justification for the shifting of focus to the south in search of rubber, tin and of course oil. British and American forces dominated the south pacific and knowing that there would be an inevitable attack based on their expansion the Japanese executed a timed attack on numerous military strong points notably pearl harbour but perhaps more strategically relevant the Philippines. The “retaliation to embargo” argument is straight from the mouths of Japanese military propagandists, the USA in particular had bent over backwards to supply Japan in an effort to slake their expanding resource demands till this point.

“Fascism… imported from Germany”: I’m not entirely sure why this was added as it is quite apparent to anyone studying Japanese military and political history of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the Japanese empire had minted its own unique brand of extremist imperialism, you can term it fascism with the modern definition of the word but to insist that Japanese militarism in government is a result of European fascism is utterly ridiculous. In any case the foundations of this system date back to Meji era policies that significantly predate fascism in Europe as a practiced ideology.

“Attack on military assests”, “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes”

While both these statements can be considered to be true it implies that there is some kind of defecit in morality between these two cherry picked events. I needn’t go into detail on the extent of Japanese war crimes mere days after and indeed on the same day if you would consider actions in mainland Asia. You’ve created a fallacy of what-aboutism that doesn’t fit the realities of the war and the extreme inhumanity of Japanese expansionism both before and after their attacks on the US. The atomic bombs while singularly destructive did not meaningfully exceed the levels of destruction wrought through conventional warfare. There is much to be said about if the bombs were in a sense “cost effective” in terms of loss of life needed to achieve peace but once the military losses are accounted for, various plans to fight till extermination, the political climate, etc. It becomes apparent that the bombs precipitated a political coup that would not have been possible otherwise. All things considered the bombs seem to have bought peace rather cheaply.

“crush any remaining resistance from Japan”

Other comments seem to cover this rather well but what alternative is there? When considering the potential loss of life of an invasion not just in enemy personnel or even civilians but your own soldiery it seems to be an easy choice. Arguments can be made about the scale, morality and civil cost of the bombs but it comes down to a philosophical argument on the ethics of the matter. Can such a scale of destruction ever be justified? Absolutely not. Given all the evidence available were the atomic bombs the least costly scenario in terms of the least amount of destruction in every conceivable metric? Absolutely yes. Any other assessment amounts to historical revision.