People on Lemmy are just as bad.

Wind turbines? Solar thermal? Nuclear in exchange for all of those Bitcoins, perhaps?

I mean, fair, but still. People should push them to go green.

You can get solar panels for like $100-$200 on Amazon right now. Nice ones. The price of them dropped like a fucking rock since China got involved.

I agree with you. That still means Bitcoin is on the hook though.

You’d think with all of the money they’re pulling in, they’d invest in solar panels or something to lower their overhead.

Or am I making the mistake of approaching the situation with common sense?

Removed by mod

Planes are ubiquitous to the global north. They’re not an American thing.

So clearly we need a different solution than cutting back on emissions.

I’d argue we might have to start human expansion into space to have any real positive impact. A solar shade, for example, could block out enough sunlight to artificially prevent warming and stabilize the climate while we construct or seek out alternative energy resources.

🤔 A blockchain with a private key tied to your palm print would work. It would guarantee proving uniqueness in a way that no human could differentiate who is what, only the blockchain itself could, and because palm prints are extremely difficult for other people to fake, it would guarantee the ability for websites to actually enforce rules in a meaningful way.

🤔 We need solar-electric cruise lines, and solar-electric yachts. If the rich were forced to go electric, it would help solve a lot of problems.

I read the article and the authorities were watching the cubs for two days as they watched them die. They first took notice when one dropped dead, and they only intervened when the other three collapsed… 😢😢😢

One cub lived, though. If there’s any solace in all of this, at least one goddamn cub lived.

😢😢😢😭😭😭

Something that’s not extremely painful to log into and that actually works

How holding to the same standards is making an equivalency? By which definition?

It’s pretty intrinsic that you can’t hold different things to the same standards. You don’t treat apples and bananas the same despite the fact that they are both fruit. Just like you don’t hold a bully and a victim to the same standards even though they’re both human.

We judge people not based on what species they’re in but by the content of their character as displayed through their actions, and for good reason. This is why we do not hold Ukraine to the same standards we hold Russia toward, because they are playing fundamentally different roles, and that is what matters, not what species they’re in. Treating people differently based on their actions is by definition where someone’s humanity comes from. Where justice comes from. That’s what justice means. Not being born into homo sapiens sapiens. That’s reductive and overly simplistic.

How, taking a single episode, there is no qualitative similarity?

Because Russia is the invader and Ukraine is the victim.

Yeah, indeed it is, but this doesn’t mean that a missile on a building is a missile on a building.

Yes it actually does, because there is a mountain of detail, context, and consideration you’re purposefully leaving out to dishonestly frame Ukraine’s actions as a negative and the more you speak, the more it comes off as intentional on your part. War is war and it may not be pretty or palatable to you, but it is a fundamental part of not only the human experience but life in general, and those distinctions matter to us. That’s why people don’t bat an eye when a Russian airport is attacked by a drone but do when a Ukrainian city is leveled into dust.

That’s what you’re missing – we judge the morality of situations based on actions and on the context of those actions, among many other factors. We don’t judge them solely by an arbitrary set of commandments with no real connection with or basis in the reality of a situation devoid of context or meaning. That’s just not how life works.

I repeat that this is a false reasoning.

I repeat that it is perfectly valid and in keeping with the reality of what we have witnessed over the past year and a half.

If Ukraine tomorrow started dissecting children it would be up to you to demonstrate that this is necessary for survival, as I wouldn’t morally justify.

And if we felt it was, then we would. Others have already categorically explained to you why a drone strike on an airport is a common act of war and why an airport is an important military target, and how and why Ukraine was even given drones in the first place, but it’s clear you’re just ignoring them because you feel angry, and your anger is directed at the wrong target. Ukraine is exercising its fundamental right to self-defense and protecting its own people at any cost, which they have the categorical right to do, and no one else disagrees with that but you.

Of course is not the same, as this was not implied anywhere. Also, it is not Moscow airport (I explicitly mentioned that I would actually support attacks on infrastructure).

Well, let’s read the article:

Russian officials said three Ukrainian drones attacked Moscow early on July 30, injuring a security guard and forcing the temporary suspension of traffic at Vnukovo airport, one of four major facilities serving the capital.

Russia’s Defense Ministry called it an “attempted terrorist attack” and claimed that one drone had been shot down and two others jammed, leading them to crash into Moscow’s prestigious Moskva-Citi business complex.

I don’t even think you read the article. I’m not sure most people here did… the whole incident was an accident and those drones were intended for the airport, but crashed into another building, rendering the basis of your complaint moot.

And honestly, that, and this:

I think that’s because most of people are trying harder to find an enemy to disagree with than actually reading and understanding other people ideas. This is not surprising, is the regular war propaganda result.

Makes it pretty clear you’re arguing in bad faith. What propaganda? Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years? Do you deny that they wrongly invaded a sovereign nation, committed brutal human rights violations against its victims, kidnapped hundreds of thousands of children, purposefully targeted and executed citizens in the street, leveled entire cities, committed mass rape against thousands of Ukrainian women, destroyed one of Ukraine’s largest dams leading to trillions of dollars in economic damage, took over a nuclear power plant and set it to blow, and threatened other countries with nuclear war if they tried to stop them?

I think it’s pretty clear the others were right to accuse you of arguing in bad faith with the specific purpose of undermining Ukraine. It’s strange that you are condemning Ukraine’s actions on deontological grounds, categorically rejecting attacks on civilians while ignoring Russia’s atrocities and even implying it’s just propaganda – and that line in and of itself is often a dog-whistle for those on the right wing who support Russia and condemn Ukraine.

I don’t think we even need to continue. You are very sus and I don’t think you’re a legitimate user. I think you’re here astroturfing to defend Russia.

Through IRC servers and not Discord’s corporate control, yes

The GUI, add a lot of features we use nowadays like profile pictures, emotes, more advanced bots, better organization for rooms in a server, possibly a new name.

I am not drawing any equivalency.

I’m sorry but yes, you are drawing a false equivalency between Russia and Ukraine by holding them to the same standards and insisting there is a “qualitative similarity”, and they are not the same. War is inherently unfair and so is life. People and countries, and the situations they are in, are inherently different and to disregard that is to be unjust, and you might not want to hear it, but you really are being unjust by doing that.

Ukraine launching a drone attack on a Moscow airport simply is not the same as Russia invading and committing genocidal acts against a sovereign nation, but you are holding Ukraine to those same standards which you should not be. That’s why the others are upset at you, I think. Ukraine gets the benefit of the doubt and they get leeway because they are trying to save their own people from genocide while Russia does not because it is actively committing genocide against that country.

I think this is what the others were trying to tell you. If we are to judge the situation on principle, and human rights, then we have to judge it on the founding principle of all human rights: self-defense, and you are violating Ukraine’s right of self-defense by insisting it limit its military options, which Russia has proven it can and will exploit and take advantage of to harm Ukraine even more.

Regarding the next part, I am not asking Ukraine anything, let alone to accept genocide. Really there is nothing in between “complete surrender” and “attacks on civilians” in your own perspective?

Yes you are, because the result of what you are asking for, ultimately, boils down to them either committing Act A or accepting death, and in this war among many others, yes, that is exactly what’s happening. You might not have been watching the news, but the rest of us have, and Russia is actively trying to commit genocide against Ukraine. It is obviously a choice between doing everything possible to ensure one’s own survival or accepting imminent death.

That’s probably why you’re inciting anger amongst others as well. You really don’t have the right or the moral authority to unilaterally demand that of other people, and your position requires it. Indeed, it directly implies it, because of how it reduces and oversimplifies very complex and human situations down to such choices.

The others think Ukraine’s existence as a people and a nation supercedes those kinds of considerations anyway, and I quite frankly don’t blame them. I don’t think you’d be willing to tell your family to accept imminent rape and murder from burglars because of your extremist views on gun control, for instance.

I also don’t think it is necessary to explain why attacking civilians does not help winning a war.

Well, in this case, you have to, not only because it is a tactic that has been very effective throughout all of human history, but because it’s what your opponent believes and you’re not adequately addressing their concerns. By refusing to, you refuse to emphasize with the other side, consider things from their perspective and be willing to find connection, and through it find truth. If you’re not even willing to show that basic human courtesy, why wouldn’t they think of you as some morally bankrupt Putin apologist, as you’ve been labeled in this thread… I see at least twice? How is dismissing others’ basic concerns and beliefs going to convince them to accept your opinion? Is that how we should talk to others?

This topic was discussed and settled already more than 50 years ago.

And over the past 70 years, things changed completely. Now we have advanced technology like drones, and cluster munitions, and F-16s, and nuclear weapons. And Ukraine has drones, which countries have been using pretty casually for over a decade without much complaint, proving the old rules about such things anachronistic. And you are proving those old rules are anachronistic by speaking out in defense of a country actively threatening the rest of the world with nuclear annihilation if they try to actively intervene to save Ukraine, and you’re doing it indirectly by condemning Ukraine by using means it was given by the same countries that made the Geneva Conventions and other treaties in the first place, with their blessing to use against Russia to save itself.

You using those conventions to condemn Ukraine is hollow and disingenuous in that light. No one thinks Ukraine using a drone on an airport is a human rights violation. Your claim that it is is really weak.

Humans are the ones who decide what morality is. Morality is not intrinsic to the fabric of spacetime or the universe, it is entirely made up by people, for people’s benefit, and it is in no way beneficial or a meaningful defense of human life to exploit it to finger-wag at an innocent country trying to save itself from genocide and annihilation. And the rest of the world has decided that it is moral for Ukraine to use those drones to do such a thing. The gavel has been swung and not in your favor, I fear.

I am also not against drone attacks, nor against attacks on Russian soil, I am against targeting civilians with those. I don’t think the choice is simply between drone attack on civilians and accepting genocide, if you think otherwise I am keen to know why.

Then you clearly haven’t been paying attention, because that is what has been happening. We know it is a hard choice because Russia has threatened the rest of the planet with nuclear annihilation if they do not allow Russia to actively take over a sovereign nation and commit genocide against its people. That’s how we know. Russia lost any benefit of the doubt or meaningful consideration it would have otherwise had because of its actions, and if we are to make a fair and just world, you and people like you must accept that. We judge and dictate such things based on people’s actions, and that might not be fair to you, but it’s just how life is. And quite honestly, how it ought to be. Not all people are the same nor should they be treated as they are.

The concept of self-defense in this context only applies if you identify the aggressor (Russia) with the whole population, which I don’t.

Well, the others here do, and they’re quite correct to do so, as all of the protesters are already jailed or fled. The only ones left are the supporters of the war, and quite frankly, the Russian people themselves have brought it upon themselves by not accepting their moral responsibility to unite and overthrowing an obvious tyrannical government regardless of the odds. The Russian people are not and never will be innocent in this case.

Arguing whether they have moral culpability in this is meaningless anyway because you would just as quickly condemn the Russian people for trying to violently overthrow their own government to stop a nuclear war, and you’d come at us with the same tired, meaningless, anachronistic and quite frankly superflous arguments.

You can use “I don’t care about the circumstances, it’s still wrong” to stop anyone from doing anything and thus enable aggressors who don’t care to do whatever it is they want. In fact, the result of your stance in all cases is that innocent people get trampled upon by their oppressors because of the act of you criticizing their approach.

You’re really being immoral here and I can’t decide if that’s intentional or not.

I remember IRC back when I was a kid. I wish someone would update it for use in today’s world.

You’re drawing a dangerous false equivalency between the invaders and the invaded and because of it, you’re not getting your message across. You may not care, but the rest of the world does, and the others in the thread clearly do feel that people like you complaining about the drone attacks unfairly burdens Ukraine because it limits their options in the face of genocide. They view the drone attacks as necessary, possibly as part of a larger plan to invade Russia, and you’re not adequately explaining why it’s unnecessary and unhelpful.

In principle, you are asking Ukraine to accept genocide rather than do things that, in these circumstances, are normal acts of war – drone attacks on civilians has been a thing for over a decade now and is simply never going to go away no matter how much you want it to – because ultimately, the situation boils down to a choice between launching drone attacks and accepting genocide, and if we accept your way of thinking, we’d have to accept the genocide. Is that really what you want?

Self-defense is a human right and a moral principle that the others stand for that you’re clearly not respecting, yet you speak of principle. Why should your principles prevail over it? Why should innocent people have to die to satisfy you?

I don’t really think you’ve thought this through