zlacker

[return to "Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal"]
1. bawolf+Y6[view] [source] 2026-01-26 01:41:03
>>mhb+(OP)
That's crazy.

That's like ~40% of the deaths in the current gaza war, except over just 2 days instead of 2 years.

◧◩
2. PlatoI+o9[view] [source] 2026-01-26 01:58:42
>>bawolf+Y6
I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.

Sure you will get some nay-sayers who say 'a life is a life', if moral particles existed, they might be correct.

But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.

What makes intra-state politics more acceptable to use violence?

◧◩◪
3. kalter+Hc[view] [source] 2026-01-26 02:22:58
>>PlatoI+o9
“A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors.”

That’s from my readings of philosophy.

But yeah, I do recognize the same sentiment as you found. I think philosophy itself is an answer: most philosophies explicitly champion dictatorships, under whitewashed terms. Ever heard something like “society is a big organ transcending individual needs”? We got it from Hegel.

◧◩◪◨
4. Braxto+vd[view] [source] 2026-01-26 02:29:55
>>kalter+Hc
>most philosophies explicitly champion dictatorships

I don't understand how you could make this claim.

"society is a big organ transcending individual needs”?"

How does this statement by Hegel champion dictatorships?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. kalter+Jj[view] [source] 2026-01-26 03:31:38
>>Braxto+vd
> I don't understand how you could make this claim.

After studying Plato, Hegel, Marx, Rousseau, fascist ideologies, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. This list is by no means exhaustive, just a few majors from the top of my head.

Sure, they didn’t just say “shoot people for power.” That’s a very shallow modern view. Instead, they champion extreme forms of altruism and its only logical expression: statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state, to society, to the group, the race, the nation, the economic class.

> How does this statement by Hegel champion dictatorships?

The statement alone surely doesn’t. His philosophy does. For him, state is a sacred authority that transcends individual will.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Braxto+Hm[view] [source] 2026-01-26 04:00:01
>>kalter+Jj
>For him, state is a sacred authority that transcends individual will.

State authority exists in democracys therefore that's not an argument for dictatorships

>they champion extreme forms of altruism and its only logical expression: statism

Why is statism the only logical expression of extreme altruism? Jesus Christ was the ultimate altruist and is not a state. I can dedicate my life to only helping others over myself as an individual .

You're arguments and example are extremely poor because you showing evidence related to governments and states but your original claim was to one specific type of government, a dictatorship.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. kalter+yy[view] [source] 2026-01-26 06:29:47
>>Braxto+Hm
For Hegel, state is something vastly different than for modern democracies. Sure, democracies can be pervasive as well but, to my knowledge, nowhere near Hegel’s level, not today.

Jesus Christ wasn’t a politician so we don’t know. But we do know that religious politicians, past and modern, rarely respect freedom.

> you showing evidence related to governments and states

Not just states but statism, a system in which man’s life and work belong to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it. This provides the theoretical hardware for dictatorial control.

[go to top]