Lots of good answers here, but one I haven’t seen is that some people have different value systems. They would be the ones that say “yes, human rights would be nice, but at what cost?”
Typically, as everyone here has pointed out, they value their own well being and comfort. “We can’t end child slave labor because then a KitKat would cost $20.” They might cite economic priorities, national or personal security, religious beliefs, or civic pride (see: China).
It always boils down to the same core belief: “It’s OK for some humans to suffer and die in indignity.” The cruelty is the point. Yes, it’s a different value system, but usually it’s about putting something other than humanity above everything else. Be it money, religion or ideology, it’s always about the idea that some material or conceptual object is more valuable than human life and dignity. The other face of that coin is dehumanization, which is the idea that, “yes all humans deserve basic rights, but did you see what they did? They obviously are animals who don’t deserve rights.”
So, if children aren’t used as slave laborers, everything becomes more expensive.
Isn’t that just what things cost? I mean, I could get free produce if I stole it from the local produce market. There are plenty of morally gray areas where reasonable people can have legitimate disagreements, but we can all get behind making child slaves illegal.
But you’ll say it’s a slippery slope. First the child slaves, then maybe all the slaves? What about the sex slaves? Are we just supposed to stop letting rich people have sex with unwilling humans? Where doe it end? If everyone has rights and freedom and access to food, shelter, medical care, and education, how will a tiny fraction of the population amass mountains of wealth and power? How will they manage to orgasm without squeezing the life from a poor immugrant who has been forcibly hooked on drugs?
No, I don’t think boycotting cheap goods will create human rights in China and India. People will need to fight for human rights, and we, the privileged few who can afford to vote with our dollars, should demand fair trade foreign policies from our elected officials. We should vote for people who are for human rights everywhere. We should support policies that promote equality everywhere. And if that means we can’t buy cheap jeans at Walmart, we should be prepared to accept that as an inconvenience.
Another common argument I’ve heard is regarding crime and criminals. Some politicians in my country tout that you cannot arrest criminals and we spend a fortune maintaining jails as if they were 5 star hotels. This is of course not true, but it does rail up the tough on crime crew who believe the only reason crime is rampant it is because it somehow allowed by human rights.
Since human rights are international agreements, it makes for an easy scape goat for those who believe in crazy conspiracy theories
There is no joke. Please sit down. You know we all love you very much, and these people have gathered because they have a few things they want to say to you:
want to also add that people using ublock origin would probably benefit from enabling more than just the default filters.
if you go into your extension prefs for UB, there’s a lot of other stuff in there. I usually select everything except the other languages. I occasionally come across a site that has a ‘we see youre using an adblocker’ type message but its not very often. and even then, most of the ones that I have seen let me dismiss the message and still view the content.
i don’t use any social media except lemmy/reddit and the like tho, so no clue how it works on facebook and other trash like that.
You’re gonna get a lot of downvotes but people really are too pacified by binge watching Survivor while scrolling through TikTok. People don’t get angry about the shit that matters, not when it’s much easier to be angrier about Star Wars not being good anymore.
It’s a bit of an ordeal on the server-side of things if you don’t know what SELinux does. These days “is SELinux fucking something up?” is a regular on my troubleshooting list, though.
But then you get the pleasure of making it submit. My Minecraft server is now running in GNU screen just like I wanted it to, and SELinux can only look on and whimper softly.
In Germany you need a certified reason for owning a gun (hunting license or participation in shooting competitions), a gun safety test, a certified gun safe and all firearms need to be registered.
Carrying a gun in public for self defense is generally not allowed.
I’d say it’s a good amount of regulation. It doesn’t keep people from shooting as a hobby, I was able to fulfill all requirements even as a student, but it weeds out the extreme loners, wannabe cowboys and people looking to buy a gun spontaneously.
They were the same species on the same planet just a few thousand years ago, which is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
It might be more accurate to say that Vulcans are just Romulans with impulse control. Before the split, Vulcans were more like modern Romulans than modern Vulcans. Vulcans at that time were highly emotional and violent. Then they had a sort of cultural revolution, which involved controlling emotions and focusing on logic. This led to some traditionalists leaving Vulcan and founding Romulus, carrying that emotional and violent culture with them.
It’s curious that despite this cultural revolution that led to founding of planet Vulcan they are still basically equals technologically. It doesn’t appear that a few thousand years of excess emotion and violent tendencies has been at all detrimental to Romulan technological advances.
Their physiology is barely diverged so their intellects are likely to remain similar. Espionage is frequently the theme of Romulan encounters, which would help keep them up to date. And if they procreate more frequently than every seven years, they might have a much larger population even with greater murderousness, with more people being advantageous for tech development.
Gene Roddenberry envisaged the Romulans as Star Trek’s version of Communist China and the Klingons as its Soviet Union. In Making of Star Trek, he and Stephen Whitfield describe the Romulans as “highly militaristic, aggressive by nature, ruthless in warfare.”
That’s from the man himself. Not sure where you got the impression that romulans aren’t violent.
It’s more like how the Borg are described as an unstoppable unrelenting all powerful force… and are stopped, relent, and are devoid of power. On paper they are one thing, on screen they are another.
With the Romulans, they tend to outsource the violence. Pit party A against B, then clean up after. Practically scavengers. Klingons, Jem’Hadar, and Hirogen I’d more readily describe as violent.
You bring up a good point. It feels like Romulans have also learned to control their violent emotions, but rather than suppress them entirely that energy is just focused all into tactics and smarter ways to be ruthless.
When I think of the Romulans, I first think of that time they plotted to bomb DS9 to gain control over the wormhole only to be thwarted by time-traveling O’Brien
See that breaks down when there are victims. Even if we stick to non human animals I’m sure you have negative opinions about some of the following: whaling, dog fighting, dog eating, skinning cats, horse racing, circus animals, pet hoarding, shark nets.
Like everyone is familiar with the idea that there are acceptable ways to seek pleasure in the world and some line beyond which they say “no you’re victimising another for your own gain. I do not think that is acceptable”. Even anti vegans rarely endorse arbitrary use of non human animals for pleasure.
So you are probably comfortable with the idea that you can’t just say “live and let live” and be done with it. That works for whether you want to plant red roses and I want to plant pink ones, or you like toffee and I like cake. It doesn’t apply when lives are on the line.
Killing/hurting beings that want to live and suffer when you don’t have to is wrong. It is a wrong thing to do.
It’s not that, it’s just the baggage that comes with it. It’s like a partner telling you they have two small kids you have to deal with. At first it’s fine, but then the pressure grows on you until one night you find yourself about to sacrifice the neighbours cat for a piece of that sweet sweet flesh, blood raining down as you tear the feline on half, its final yowls turning raw and gutteral whilst the life winks slowly out of its eyes to be reborn elsewhere in another life no doubt.
Exactly, it’s the cool factor that is the main driving force. Every time I go to the kebab shop, I pop on my sunglasses, sidle up casually to the counter and raise two fingers to the meatkeep, signalling that I want two baby deer on a pizza - stat! - and then I slide him two dollars across the counter, to sweeten the deal, and with a wink he throws in a hamster for that extra zest.
I chug down my ayran like a boss so fast that it makes the girls gasp, and then I grab my pizza and action roll out of the shop, tossing finger guns at everyone in sight. I aaaaaay across the road, fonzie-style, and tip the local crackhead generously with the end of mood ring to show him that I care and that I’m down.
I’m not a saint. If people are going to try and hurt me I’m going to ridicule them.
Go audit what that person has said.
Besides maybe I’m a piece of shit, there’s no guarrantee I fulfill my own green flags.
I actually frequently identify myself as a human garbage fire, which is funny really. Like I am a human garbage fire and even I am vegan, so what does that make non vegans?
Of course, authority is a pretty fucked up concept as implemented in our society. It’s almost always nothing more than the threat of violence for not subsuming your own needs to the needs of another. The other usually claiming that privilege through nonsense like birthright, wealth, closeness to power structures or similar.
Anyone who uses such a ridiculous thing is at best a fool. Calling out injustice and laughing at awful people is definitely a green flag.
Consider say the difference between interacting with a cop and a firefighter. The cop claims authority, do what they say or be tortured into compliance. The firefighter has no authority and yet I’ll bet you trust everything they say a lot more than the cop and are far more willing to cooperate.
I’m infamous for understanding to an extent, but that’s like saying “Japanese police are bad, therefore being in the Yakuza is a green flag”. I too am not that fond of authority, but that doesn’t make every robber a Robin Hood.
I thought you meant in an antagonistic sense, like someone who gestures they’re at war with authority, especially in favor of doing anything and everything.
Well if that’s what you mean, don’t we all mock people in authority at times? We do live in a memes culture after all. I commonly joke about how the police where I live are a family business, especially as they aren’t that great.
Violent thugs claim authority regardless of the source. The cops claim the law enables them to torture you into compliance, the gangs claim it by right of might.
The reason is not relevant, laugh at them all (where doing so won’t get you killed).
This doesn’t mean fuck rules or cooperation. If my friends and I play a board game we all agree to be bound by collective rules for the pursuit of some mutual fun. Of course nobody has authority in the same sense, anyone is free to say “I don’t think this rule is fun, can we change it?” or “I’m not having fun right now, I’m sorry but I’d like to stop playing”.
I love people who help others, I just also love it when those helpful people burst out laughing when someone says “that’s Mr Bossman to you!”.
As to your reply to other person, yeah a lot of people don’t respect authority and laugh at it. I think it’s a green flag. Some people kiss the ring and lick the boot. Those people scare me because I can’t think of any reason except that they dream of being over another.
There’s a lot of writing on subtle details of sorts of authority and it’s a bit of a problem with language.
You could say that you voluntarily grant the firefighter temporary authority in some circumstances or whatever but to avoid quibbling over language for essays let’s agree that there is a difference between someone imposing authority vs an individual deciding to believe someone should be listened to because of some domain expertise.
It’s probably due to autism traits but “mocking authority” sounds like just mocking anyone relying on previous experience or education rather being able to justify their position in the situation at hand. Compare to the logical fallacy of “relying on authority”
When it comes to fire safety, I don’t need to know exactly with sources why some areas need to be “fire cells” while other areas, similar in my eyes, doesn’t if the information comes from a fire fighter. I rely completely on his/her authority on the matter and doesn’t need any more evidence to let the fire fighter enforce those laws and regulations.
Im guessing that in this context “authority” in the thread starter text is shorthand for “perceived authority by the enforcer without real and safe recourse for the person having authority enforced upon”?
Since both the cop and fire fighter have means of legal repercussions if their authority is not followed I mean.
I’m not sure I follow. For the purposes of my example the firefighter has no legal recourse if you don’t listen. They’re just random volunteers where I live.
I don’t want to get too hung up on definitions because that’s counter productive I think. So what I’m talking about is that sometimes humans rely on power, real or perceived, in order to demand that others subsume their own desires and submit to those of the powerful.
Examples are police and other violent gangs - do what I say or I shoot you, capitalists - work for me or I will starve you, shitty parents - do what I say or I will hurt you.
I am calling that authority, notice that at no point is there consent from the person authority is being claimed over (it’s not consent if it’s coerced).
On the other hand people sometimes agree to perform certain roles with each other, or to be bound by certain rules in order to undertake some endeavour. For example when I am teaching my niece science she agrees to solve the problems I ask her to solve, but there is no coercion here. She is free to say at any moment “no” and I am free to either withdraw my offer to teach, ask a different question, propose a break or whatever else. Similarly working groups might elect someone among them to manage a project, but this isn’t authority (as I have defined above) if they are free to relect a project manager, refuse directions or whatever.
Various writers have waffled to varying extents trying to pin down specific definitions. I side with those who think it’s clearer to distinguish between the two social arrangements by not calling the second one authority.
Where I live the fire fighters are a professional force tasked with emergency tasks as well as enforcing compliance with fire safety regulations, as an example an association I work with had to pay a fine due to having some of the smoke detectors non functioning. Thats an authority I have no issue with, with goes back to the word “mocking” authority rather than “questioning” authority.
One sounds like the refusal of having another party authority over oneself, the latter implies a valuation if the authority is proper, fitting and reasonable or not.
but it’s not the legal repurcussions that make you listen. If anything they undermine, as you need to establish whether advice is genuine or somebody throwing their weight around.
Mocking authority for me would be a red flag as it’s a sign of immaturity. The people in my life that do this are the ones that tend to be emotionally rash, and inability to control emotions is a huge red flag.
However not just submitting to authority and being confident enough to stand up to it while being respectful, that’s a green flag.
What do you gain from treating them with disrespect, other than escalation? Nobody likes being disrespected, regardless of whether or not they deserve / have earned that respect. By operating on a baseline of “give people the benefit of the doubt and treat them with respect by default” you open a world of constructive / logical discussion that would be closed if you were emotional.
To me, mocking someone is a person’s way of saying “I don’t have a well thought out argument against X, so I’ll just give it a nickname and talk shit about it”.
If you have to think of one person who is famous for mocking anyone / anything they don’t like, who would it be? For me, the first person that comes to mind is Trump. Is that someone who is worth modelling your behaviour after?
these are good green flags. I see the flak youre getting from folks doing the whole “make fun of vegans on the internet” thing, and wanted to say that the vegans Ive met irl have been really chill folks that are willing to make sacrifices for a better society. idk why vegans get trashed on online for sharing the long list of pros for veganism, as if people don’t share opinions online all the time.
personally, I’m on a reduce animal products in ways i can with an occasional “treat yo-self” day, but that’s mostly because ive lived a lot of my life being poor and havent always been able to select my own diet.
excited for more lab grown options, and I love when vegan options exist because they are usually unique, delicious, and dont have dairy(am allergic).
We’re all on our own journey. I spent 25 years eating, wearing, or otherwise using our fellow earthlings to various degrees before I realised I didn’t want to be someone who kills when I don’t have to.
I am grateful for what kindness you practice and I hope you will continue to reflect on your relationship with earthlings.
ikr, ITT, people getting mad they don’t fit into / agree with a strangers green flag list. The world is a wild place and I hope it’s not as hostile or absurd as I believe it is.
The V word makes people go nuts because they know they ought to be.
Notice how nobody is flipping out about my preference for people unfraid of getting their hands dirty, or imagine if I had written Buddhist. Would anyone have replied that it’s a red flag for them or written weird fantasies about anti Buddhist violence?
It upsets people because we all know killing animals is wrong. It’s easy and it’s tasty though. We tell ourselves it’s ok because everyone else is, but then a vegan comes along and the illusion shatters.
I hate the idea that older kids shouldn't do it. Like I remember getting shit when I decided to be kid-like again at 15 after not having done it when I was 13 and 14.
Houses told me I was too old. And looking back now, as a parent of teens, and I wish they and their friends were just going out trick r treating. I will definitely encourage any kid I see. And at my age anyone under 26 is a kid, easily. I'd much rather kids do something communal and fun than just go out drinking. I'm sure that by the next Halloween when I was 16 I was probably doing something less good than asking for free candy.
If we want people to be communal, have fun, and be safe then we shouldn't give them shit when they do that. So I don't care if the old dude down the streets dons a skeleton costume and grabs a pillow case. If he has a costume, he gets candy. And anyone who tells me different will get called out for being a killjoy.
I think Trump will have done the most damage when the dust settles. We’ve had almost 20 years to see the effects Bush had on our country but only about 3 years since Trump left office. He packed the Supreme Court, made people proud to be racists, destroyed our electoral system, gutted the EPA, sold our secrets to our enemies, and made fascism popular.
Bush started a war in which US massacred over 6 million people. It’s absolutely incredible how Americans absolutely don’t give a shit about all the atrocities their deplorable regime does around the globe
According to the WHO, nearly 7 million people worldwide have died to date due to COVID-19. Aside from just mortality, COVID-19 has caused massive shockwaves across economic systems across the world that irreversibly impacted hundreds of millions of people. I won’t pretend all of COVID deaths were caused by Trump, but you can bet your ass that a significant number of them, my personal extended family included, died because he politicized the virus and treated it like it was no big deal.
Blaming covid on Trump is quite the stretch given that there was no tangible difference between the approach that Trump and Biden admins took towards handling the pandemic. The media just stopped reporting the deaths on daily basis when democrats got into power. US deaths account for around 1.1 million, and a large portion of those deaths happened under democrats.
The reason people died was due to lack of a social safety net, lack of sick days, lack of free healthcare, and so on. Saying that people died because Trump politicized the virus is frankly nonsensical.
I agree with a lot of what you say but our electoral system was fkd way before him. People were already proud of being racist he just gave them a microphone. The EPA still gets me though. We have been moving more and more to a fascist government for years now since the event of 2001 when we gave up privacy for security.
I think it’s more what happened under the cover of Trump, ie what Republicans do, which is where the damage was in Trump’s presidency. He was basically a smokescreen and scapegoat for all manner of interests, but as an individual almost completely vapid aside from his narcissistic drive for attention, which all mainstream politics was more than happy to provide him with.
Well obviously… But as a German I must say there is no possibly to use PeerTube in any legally save way in Germany.
That is not the fault of PeerTube of course it’s the fault of copyright mafia and German politics. Since PeerTube uses P2P to distribute load among all (which is extremely clever and should definitely not change), German law makes you responsible for anything you upload even if it’s in a P2P manner. So if you just accidentally clicked on a video containing Copyright protected Material or illegal content, you are seen as contributor of this content with all consequences.
So imagine going to jail because you clicked the wrong video… This is as stupid as it sounds and needs to change. Sadly German public is not carrying about this enough. I hope PeerTube will become more popular one day so that people are confronted to this insane law more frequently.
Wait, I thought that PeerTube was peer to peer in the sense that the various PeerTube server instances were peers, and not the users clicking and watching videos were peers. Am I mistaken? It seems that in order for the users to peer, they would need to either install a client program that would do that, or make some heavy browser security approvals. If it’s the servers that are peering, then this law shouldn’t apply to the users.
Ah, interesting, thanks! The wikipedia article on PeerTube explains that it is indeed user peer to peer to some extent, using WebTorrent. I had no idea. Very interesting.
Every single time someone makes a post with this opinion, they’re either a Nazi or a Nazi apologist. They don’t want discourse, they just don’t like it when people tell them to shut up. It makes it hard to take their arguments seriously because I know they’re just excuses.
Lo and behold, you have a downvoted comment in your recent history where you argue Nazis should be allowed a safe space to talk in. The pattern continues.
Criticism is a part of public discourse as much as approval is. People who allow positive responses freely but put walls in the way of criticism tend to be the ones trying to silence all forms of criticism. They want a positive feedback loop so they can pretend people agree with them. Some people need to be told to shut up quickly and decisively.
To be fair, i too would argue that even horrible people with sick midset should have a safe accessible digital space to talk in and i align with antifa anarchist radical far left progressives.
The wrong and sick opinions in their thought remain opinions and therefor are a protected human right.
By providing at least a safe space were biggots can be biggots we keep them away from other communities.
It allows us to create a window so we can look ourselves and try to understand why they think the way they think. So we can eventually learn how to help them with their mental illnesses. Only when an individual rights are broken or planned to be broken (doxxing, sharing someones pics without consent) are we right to intervene. For generic hate speech? If no visitor consider it offensive is it still offensive? (yes if it leaks, otherwise its no different from a racist family over dinner)
In the end Fascism isnt a problem we can solve by just not allowing it, its not even the problem We need to solve but a symptom of a toxic psychology, these people will always find a way. Its the same for drug use and other criminal acts. There will always be back channels or alt communities to provide for them, the more oppressive we try to ban them the more secretive and the more fuel wel give to there extremes.
Fascism isn’t a problem we can solve by just not allowing it the more oppressively we try to ban them the more secretive and the more fuel we give to their extremes
This is a commonly held belief that is actually just not true. Certain garbage opinions and behaviours will fester and spread and absolutely make a space worse. Communities that allow toxic behaviour will both push away reasonable people, and attract people with toxic views. Setting proper boundaries, rules, and conduct are important for maintaining a place of healthy discussion.
I don’t mind if they have somewhere to talk with each other - I think you’re correct it’s pointless to try to stop that - I’m just not interested in spending any time there.
Highly agree because thats not what i am saying we should do. I am very aware of the paradox of intolerance, that we should be intolerant of intolerance.
I actually had to very conversation yesterday and i think i even mixed them up at some point, here is comment of mine from the other explanation where i think I articulated my opinion better.
“an individual forum shouldn’t carry the responsible to protect all human rights on that forum. But as an anarchist i object to the authority of a centralized state so i cant see it their job either.
In my ideals humanity is a collective of people and all of us carry the responsibility to safeguard the wellbeing of all people, as a collective. People who have been at the rejected end of continued intolerance know how damaging it can be for ones health.
Currently i dont know any true safe online spaces for the world most misguided or seriously ill people. So where can these people go? Social isolation is an echo chamber of their own mind.
Lemmy.ml doesnt need a nazi community but as - moral global human collective we should at least maintain lists of resources to help those struggling (with morality). A simple “we dont allow this here but here is a list of resources” ranging from social media to mental heath providers, or better social media monitored by non authoritative mental health providers. “
And comments like yours are exactly why I want open discourse. You’ve risen in the comment ranks with misleading information. And even if what you said were true verbatim, how does your argument solve anything? Do you think that suppressing someone’s right to think or express themselves will make them “see the light” like in some movie? Think about it from another person’s angle. If someone you disagree with tries to silence you, I’m sure you would not be okay with that, right? If they said you’re not allowed to have a safe space because your ideas are somehow dangerous from their point of view. They could use the same argument your using, demean your viewpoints by name-calling. In their mind, their opinion is the correct one, much the same as you’re feeling. Where does it end? These are all fairly common arguments to silence people and where has it gotten us? Think of the children, this group of people are dangerous they’re not allowed a voice. So you’re free to speak, just please don’t cross the line into defamation or anything illegal. I find it troubling that the first thing you did was go searching in my comment history, instead of simply addressing my post on its merit, which is something we all should try and do. I don’t care what you believe politically or whatever, I’m here for discussion and advocate free speech, and to do that there are times when you will defend peoples’ right to speak you don’t necessarily agree with, but there’s more to it than this petty arguing, and that’s what I’m trying to get at. To sum up, you’re essentially telling me to shut up through the side of your mouth, as is your right to do so in a free world, but I implore you to critically evaluate your comment. Honestly I’m not 100% sure what your point was, you’re stating criticism is part of public discourse, I agree, I don’t advocate otherwise. This implies that people should be free to speak, but also to be criticised, yes, again, I agree. Then you speak about walls to criticism, not sure where you got that from. A downvote is not criticism, it’s a mechanism by which to control visibility of someone’s post or comment. My argument is that people should be held to account for those downvotes, which would mean they would be criticised, so again we circle back to the criticism, which I’ve already agreed with you on. I hope you allow yourself to let go of whatever hatred you have in your heart, and I wish you a good day or night wherever you are.
I don’t care what you believe politically or whatever, I’m here for discussion and advocate free speech, and to do that there are times when you will defend peoples’ right to speak you don’t necessarily agree with, but there’s more to it than this petty arguing, and that’s what I’m trying to get at.
That’s not what you’re going to get.
The ideas of the market of place of ideas and free speech were about deliberation, joint decision making about what to do about issues as they arose. They weren’t valuable in and of themselves, but as a means to the least worst (ideally, the most agreed upon) end.
Of course, abstracting them from their teleology made them valuable in and of themselves. But that abstraction leads to petty arguments. Speech for the sake of speech is empty rhetoric, of which there is so. fucking. much. Political polarization that employs Manichean Us vs Them rhetoric is basically all empty bullshit. And a focus on free speech as* free speech only*, and not an integral part of process of deliberation, reinforces is as the rhetoric of bullshit. Petty arguments abound because arguments can be had about absolutely nothing at all.
Think about it from another person’s angle. If someone you disagree with tries to silence you, I’m sure you would not be okay with that, right? If they said you’re not allowed to have a safe space because your ideas are somehow dangerous from their point of view. They could use the same argument your using, demean your viewpoints by name-calling. In their mind, their opinion is the correct one, much the same as you’re feeling. **Where does it end? **
It ends when we realize that we have shit to do and it needs to get done.
The effectiveness of arguments like “They’re coming for your gas stoves!” is rooted in absolute, totalizing bullshit. The “threat” of “limiting” your “freedom” of house appliances is presented as dire and urgent and personal, conflating regulation designed to limit the adverse of house appliances on climate change with an apocalypse of democracy. That last bit is what I mean by it being totalizing, it’s existential. Meanwhile, while gas stove lovers the country over engage in bullshit politics, climate change has made 2023 the hottest year since global records began.
That’s my solution anyway: focus on institutionalizing a method of getting shit done. Maybe get rid of downvotes and upvotes altogether and make people post emojis to show they’re dis/approval. Make people work to engage in discourse.
There was no misleading information. There was no name-calling. It’s weird you think there was.
If you’re allowed to say “Nazis are allowed a space to hang out”, I’m allowed to say “shut the fuck up”. If you’re allowed to say “yeah, I agree with this” by upvoting, I’m allowed to say “this is a terrible idea” by downvoting. If you don’t have to give an explanation for why you support something, you shouldn’t have to give an explanation for why you oppose something.
I’m telling you to shut up from the front of my mouth. You are not the first person to put forward this argument, and you’re not the first person to do it shortly after being downvoted for defending Nazis. You deliberately want a double standard that limits criticism and it was a pretty easy guess, proven right, that you had recently been justifiably criticised.
I said people you disagree with. I also stated I don’t understand what is meant by “Nazis”, I feel you’re projecting an awful lot. The word Nazi doesn’t even mean anything anymore. Maybe it means something to you personally, but what is in your mind has nothing to do with me. It’s funny going into what I guess is quite an “echo chamber” and get accused and name-called and told to shut up. For what, exactly? So you consider yourself a tolerant person? If you are unable to tolerate anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the exact same thoughts as yourself then I suspect the answer is no. Why don’t you try basing arguments off actual merit, rather than leaping to your hail Mary Nazi shut down line. If you open your mind a little bit, I mean really, actually open it up to everything, I’m sure you’ll find your anger start to subside. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, and again, I wish you all the best.
Sounds more like an enlightened centrist to me, but same difference really.
If a maniac wanted to shoot someone ten times, and the victim wated not to be shot, the enlightened centrist would smugly proclaim that the maniac shooting the victim five times would be a just middle ground that’d be fair to both parties, and that the victim would be unreasonable, intolerant, and antidemocratic for not agreeing to it.
Same result, orders of magnitude more hypocrisy and idiocy, and of course you can’t criticise them, since by enabling the maniacs they’re just debating and trying to find a compromise, and disagreeing with them is being hostile and going against the very principles of democracy itself.
Malignant asshats, the whole lot of them, wouldn’t recognize the paradox of tolerance if you violently hit them in the head with it.
Honestly, that’s not the most bothersome part. It’s more bothersome to me that they’re completely unaware that humans are not far off from being in those same crosshairs.
kbin.life
Top