• forrgott
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 个月前

    Semantics. That’s what this seems to boil down to.

    And, no, they did not “stay out of a conflict” by capitulating (in advance even) to Zionists’ apartheid views of the world.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 个月前

      I mean, this is literally the basis of the trolley problem, and the divergence of several major schools of moral thought.

      • forrgott
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 个月前

        Umm. No. No offense, but that’s patently ridiculous.

        A corporation chose a distasteful policy to avoid the possibility of losing profits due to negative press. There are no lives at risk. The only risk is “brr! line must go up”

        To equate such morally detestable behavior to minimizing actual suffering and loss is bizarre and nonsensical at best. At worst, it’s nothing more than helping whitewash the vile and disgusting crimes of an apartheid warmongering regime.

        There is no nuance here. They capitulated to genocidal bigotry to maximize profits.