this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
496 points (98.6% liked)
196
6430 readers
1601 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even when a war is necessary to prevent a worse outcome, it is still bad
Pacifism is so logically inconsistent.
Well yeah, but if that's the only kind of war that a military is planning on fighting, IMO it's a bit much to call it "evil".
As militaries are a tool of states to protect their sovereign power: That's not what militaries do, though.
I don't want to die for a state. Even if that state is being challenged in it's sovereignity.
Of course depending on a defensive war, but often times you're not fighting for the state, but your loved ones. Like on a smaller scale nearly everyone would defend the people close to them from harm, for example trying to stop a rapist from abusing your wife/sister/daughter of course not limited to women. Rape can be used against men as well.
In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align.
If I'm part of a state's army, I'm fighting for the militaristic goals of that state. That state only has an interest in my "loved ones" insofar as it's the population they require to achieve their political aims. My loved ones aren't benefactors of the state. That's just state propagana.
Your rape example has little in common from militaristic conflict that it's simply a non-sequitur.
I think you misunderstand what wars are to a state: In war, two or more states fight for their interest by destroying an opponents people and resources by destroying their own people an resources. I'm not a resource that's willing to be used up.
What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture?
That still doesn't mean that I'd be ready to die for another state.
So you prefer to roll over and get genocided?
Not what I said.
I'd flee or if there's any reasonable chance to survive, I'd join some self-defense militia. But I wouldn't die for a state.
Arbitrarily drawing the line at your feet for what form of group is acceptable doesn’t change that your self-defense militia would in fact be akin to “a state” in the context of what is being discussed.
it were a state, I wouldn't have a say in whether or not I will help in defending that state.
There are enough states with voluntary recruitment?
How long do you think that remains voluntary once a state of emergency is called out due to war?
So if your land gets taken over, you'll go somewhere else and take someone else's land?
Is that hou you view refugees? As "taking someone else's land"?
Ok, Mr Musk. /s
There's a big difference between inviting someone into your home and someone entering uninvited. There's also a big difference between inviting one person into your home versus ten people.
Ok. I'll better not ask you about your opinion on the "refugee crisis" of 2015 or what you think about refugees drowning in the mediterranean sea.
You're probably also in favour of male Ukranian refugees between 18 and 60 in losing their residence permit in Germany in 2028.
I don't know enough about these situations to comment on them. In isolation, a non-zero amount of suffering and death is obviously worse than none. But the world isn't an isolated bubble like that. When you consider everything in its totality, it's no longer so obvious what the correct objective should be, and that's with the assumption that we can even even devise a measurable score for any of these objectives. Do we care for a lower bound on everyone's quality of life? Do we want to maximize some quality of life average or total? Do we want to maximize the duration of human existence? Who is this "everyone"? Everyone alive today? Everyone who will ever exist? Do we give the same weight to every person? Or should we use some discounted weighting so that present humans get higher priority than future humans? Or should we put a cap on how much of our collective resources we can allocate to any given individual?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Whatever tangent you're on about: I can't experience anything anymore if I'm dead. And I'm sure as shit doing anything in my power not to die "for my nation".
I don't know. You brought up all those other scenarios. I don't know how they're relevant either.
Anyway, why would it not be a good thing if others want to put their lives on the line so that you can live your life in peace, or flee successfully if it comes to that?
Still very far from ideal to kill soliders of the invading army, cuz they're also people with lives and aren't always willing in their choice, or worse case, indoctorinated. There truly are monsters whom love wars and killing and enter the army exactly because, but those are almost certainly a minority
Edit: I'm not exactly sure why, but it seems like my comment is being read as if in opposition rather than in addition. I'm not saying "don't kill", I'm saying "shame it did come to that", where it did come to that because of military as a concept. Military as a reaction to other militaries only exists as a need to other militaries existing as well. So if there was no military to exist in the first place, there would simply be no need for one as a reaction either
Sure it's not ideal but I won't cry for any dead Russian soldiers. You walked across that border, you deserve to die.
I wouldn't phrase it as 'deserve', but yeah, obviously. Pacifism is as bad of a failure when it doesn't prevent those whom bring harm from doing so. I have no issue with them dying since it did come to that point. But I still, personally, believe that I can get to grieve for them nonetheless. It's not contradictory as I see it.
(I'm more than open to a discussion and even invite for someone to correct me if I'm wrong, not in the sense of "I challange" as much as "I want to improve")
Idk. If you’re coming to kill me fuck you. I don’t really care about your justification.
“Ooh, but I was indoctrinated, it wasn’t my fault” No. You are coming to kill me so fuck you.
I get it's not what I would like to happen in general that a soldier invades another country. Still, they have to die in order to avoid being occupied. It's a different debate on which is worse and depends a lot on the occupying country and the recipient, generally occupation bad tho.
I think every army that had to defend their home country would have preferred doing other things, and until 2022 i honestly tought that invasions were a thing of the past, at least in Europe. Russia showed otherwise, now i think that being capable of defending yourself is important. You dont have to have a ginormous army like the US but you have to be enough of a threat that somebody would think twice before attacking.
You're right, all war is bad. War sucks and it should never have to happen. Even wars fought for good reasons are still terrible and it would be a better world if they never had to be fought at all.
The part you're missing is that war is not the military. They're different things. Militaries fight wars, that doesn't mean that wars will magically stop happening to everyone who gets rid of their military. It would be wonderful to live in a world where militaries aren't needed, but instead we live in a world where many countries live under the constant threat of invasion.
The Canadian military maintains a constant presence in Latvia, because if we didn't, Russia would walk in there tomorrow and take over. My wife just finished a tour. The Latvians don't resent the presence of our military, they love us. Everywhere she went, barring some very specific exceptions, people were glad to see them. They felt happy, reassured by their visible presence. People from the other side of the world who had upended their lives to spend six months away from family and loved ones defending their tiny little country from the threat of brutal autocratic rule.
No one wants these things to be necessary, but they are, whether we like it or not. We would not be living in a better world right now if, in 1939, the whole world had just rolled over and let the Nazis walk in without a fight, would we?
Do elaborate.
War is always nasty, cruel, and terrible for the people involved, even if it is a just fight. Killing people is nothing to celebrate and there is nothing honorable about it
I agree with you. The rest of this comment may seem to imply otherwise, but two things can be true at the same time.
There is celebration to be had in not being genocided by successfully overcoming an invading force though. There is celebration to be had when you've eliminated a threat to your family's lives.
If someone wants to play stupid games, let them win stupid prizes. I don't agree with murder, but killing in self-defense, even at scale, is reasonable. I would even go as far as to say it is good to live a longer, safer life. As far as "good" and "bad" are just projections of human's fear of discomfort and suffering, and desire for pleasure and comfort.
It is good to live, it is bad to die. If soldiers didn't want to die, they wouldn't go to war. They made their choices. Its a weird use of free-will in my opinion, but its an option.