war is peace
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
687 points (98.6% liked)
196
5835 readers
1898 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
Keep in mind that this is a guest opinion, which means it is not intended to reflect the official opinion of the Washington Post—in fact, it might be the opposite, but published anyway in order to provide a diversity of viewpoints. (Personally, I do not like everyone they have chosen to platform, but it is not unreasonable for them to want to err on the side of listening to what the other side has to say to avoid creating an echo chamber.)
I can't understand how there are people who genuinely believe this argument. "Newspapers can publish anything with no responsibility as long as it says the word opinion"
Nah fuck that, that's like posting straight Nazi gibberish and playing the "representing both sides" argument when someone calls you on it. In this day and age that whole idea can go fuck itself right into oblivion. We are all grown enough to known the difference.
It is not always the case that the side you disagree with is just a bunch of Nazis, and furthermore sometimes it is you who are wrong. That is why it is important not to be too zealous in shutting out everyone you disagree with on any issue.
Nonetheless, that does not mean that everyone should be platformed, and I am not a fan of some of the choices that the Washington Post has made in this regard, which is why I am no longer a subscriber. However, I did not think that this particular article was that bad, because it is essentially just saying that order results in far greater peace and prosperity than no order, especially when it incorporates increasingly large scales of people, but that it unfortunately requires violence to bring this about. One can very reasonably disagree, but one needs to do more than what many have done, which is to just read the title, assume that one knows what the article was arguing, and then criticize it based on that assumption.
War is bad. Good things coming about from bad things does not make the bad thing good. Especially when that bad thing is the death of who knows how many people, combatants and civilians alike. One should not need to carefully consider the idea that "maybe mass death and untold suffering is good?" because it is objectively bad. Also you type like a redditor.
Something something, act utilitarianism something something.
Obviously war is bad, which is why the idea that was actually being considered was actually "maybe mass death and untold suffering is not the worst thing, if it buys peace and prosperity for subsequent generations by building a civilization of greater scale". As @inputzero@lemmy.world says below, one's thoughts on this probably depends on exactly how one feels about utilitarianism.
And... is the best attack you could come up with that I "type like a redditor"? Really?
No, mass death and untold suffering is still bad. Good things that come about from bad things does not make the bad thing good, or as you put it, "not the worst thing." This really isn't some complex moral dilemma and I don't understand why you feel the need to make it one. It's bad when people suffer, the more people that suffer the more bad-er it is. Can good things come about from that suffering? Yeah, good can come from anywhere, but that doesn't mean the suffering in of itself is justified. Also you type like a redditor.
I think that if you do not believe in your own argument strongly enough to let it stand on its own without adding bizarre criticisms of my writing style, then it is really not worth me continuing to engage. Have a good day! 😉
And I think you can't stand the thought of "losing the argument" so you have to paint me as some facetious clown so that you may coddle your fragile ego, if we're just throwing out random accusations now. People shouldn't suffer. That's not a debate point or something to argue over, it's a fact. I don't understand why you would want to argue otherwise, I simply cannot fathom it. Also you type like a redditor! 😉
Nonsense. The "it's just opinion" canard is so tired, please just let it die. By publishing an opinion in a well regarded (deservedly or not) news outlet, they launder ideas into mainstream acceptability by announcing that a reasonable person could hold such an opinion. A reasonable person can not hold such an opinion as this. If it was published with a warning and an analysis of how dangerous this is and to make people aware of how the extreme right thinks, that would be one thing. But publishing an opinion without comment is endorsement, no matter how much people say it isn't.
Bezos changed the editorial line of the paper so that conflicting views are not allowed.
Imperialist wars are, in fact, a pillar of neoliberalism, so of course they support it. They also make you richer, as the title claims, if you're the propaganda appendage of a fascist regime, or own stocks in military corporations.
There was still some diversity of viewpoints, though it was much narrower. Still, I agree it got significantly worse, which is why I stopped subscribing to it. (I stuck around for longer than many because the reporting outside the opinion page was pretty good and I wanted to support that, but it eventually became too much for me.)
Also, out of curiosity, did you actually read the article? Because none of the points you seem to think that it makes come close to what it actually argues.
I think opinion pieces are great for matters of taste.
War, on the other hand, is about life, death, money, and politics all rolled into one giant horror-show. Publishing op-ed on such a topic, on such a well-known paper, is basically elevating -whatever- to the same level of validity as actual journalism. It's a really bad show on the Post's part.
So newspapers should never publish any opinions that have any commentary on warfare?
Actually, no, I really think they shouldn't. In such matters I think it's crucial to stick to just the facts and journalistic integrity (such as it is). Elevating personal opinion to the same level as wartime photography, reporting, data, etc. has dangerous ramifications for all involved. I'm aware that newspapers and other news/media outlets have bias, one way or another, but I think it important to draw a line and minimize that bias to the greatest extent possible; saying no to op-eds on war is such a line.
WRT to opinions and discussion on war, we have other kinds of media and public forums to serve that.
Out of curiosity, did you actually read the article? Because it neither commented on any of the wars ongoing in 2014 nor proposed any new ones.
Also, newspapers generally have a designated opinion section, and this was in that section, so it was not treated the same as factual reporting in the manner you are concerned about.