• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    When Musk took over Twitter he allowed violent and extremist views to flood it without moderation.

    That’s the sort of community Lemmy would be if we didn’t have the tools needed to keep it clean of harmful ideologies.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        When nazis start enforcing their ideology I will raise arms, until then your sentiment closely resembles the goal of propagandists on these sites: create division and cause violence.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          What are you talking about? Exploding Heads is a literal Nazi Lemmy Instance that was defederated by pretty much every major instance.

          Or are you going on an Anticommunist rant?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I have no context about the community, I assumed you were advocating for exploding heads of political enemies as a way of keeping feeds clean, because the comment explicitly reads as such.

            There is nothing communist about Nazis, just like theres nothing Democratic about the DPRK.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I have no context about the community, I assumed you were advocating for exploding heads of political enemies as a way of keeping feeds clean, because their comment explicitly reads as such.

              That’s certainly a leap. Exploding Heads is a Nazi Lemmy Instance.

              There is nothing communist about Nazis, just like theres nothing Democratic about the DPRK.

              So it was a random anticommunist rant, unprovoked, lmao

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                If anything I said seems anticommunist to you then clearly you don’t know what communism is.

                You should start referring to the nazi community “exploding heads” as “the nazi community “exploding heads”” if you dont want people to think of heads which are exploding.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I know quite well what Communism is, thank you very much. You’re openly pro-NATO and anti-Communist.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Anti-Trade

          What does this mean?

          Anti-NATO

          It’s good to be Anti-NATO, NATO has Nazi origins and serves as a way to maintain Western Hegemony, securing profits via Imperialism and defending said Imperialism through coalition.

            • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              anti globalist, economically it’s just universally bad

              Right… NAFTA was universally beloved and was never taken advantage of by unsavory political characters. I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.[/s]

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                funnily enough my comment was removed, unsure why, pretty sure it was mostly accurate though lol.

                I’m sure you have some very unkind words for Biden after he continued and expanded Trump’s trade war.

                it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

                It’s a give and take, like everything is. But regardless, globalism is generally good for the economy.

                • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It is weird that your comment was removed.

                  it’s a fine balance between putting a 20% tariff on literally every import (i believe trump wanted to do this) and putting a 100% tariff on chinese EVs to give the american auto market a leg to stand on.

                  Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

                  Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.

                  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It is weird that your comment was removed.

                    yeah idk i’ve seen weird shit happen a few times so far, btw if you’re a mod and remove shit, please tell people why even if its literally just quoting what they said that got it deleted.

                    Right this is the contradiction I was poking fun at.

                    yeah, if you’re a globalism absolutist that would be silly, but tariffs are a useful market force, they allow competition in market sectors that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Farming gets a lot of subsidies for these reasons, and when we’re talking about shit like non essentials a chinese EV specifically, the implications of it on the market are a lot less significant than something like tariffing AA batteries produced outside of america.

                    The trump admin tariffed canadian lumber imports. Why? There’s a reason they have a lumber industry, it’s because they can do it for cheaper than we can (they have a lot more wooded lands, and a lot less people living there)

                    yes a 100% tariff on EVs is quite significant, but then again, we have a massive domestic auto manufacturing capability, as well as a general lack of need for “foreign EVs” it might make the market cheaper and more accessible, but that’s coming eventually anyway.

                    Personally, I prefer the carrot to the stick approach. I think we should do more stuff like the chips act and less stuff like tariffs. This is especially true in the context of technology that aids in the transition to an economy that uses less fossil fuels. The ~$10,000 Chinese EVs would be a pretty massive tool in that arsenal. (Though not as good of a tool as they are in China because of China’s genuinely impressive rail system.) If you want more American made EVs —cool so do I— but we will get there faster with the right industrial policy. The tariffs do little to make that happen.

                    i’m generally inclined to agree especially on a federal level, IMO i think that tariffs generally have a really subtle market effect, and i think that’s generally the intention of them. They aren’t meant to be massive blanket sweeps. If you really wanted to incentivize people to own EVs you wouldn’t import them at 0% tariff, you would just subsidize owning or buying an EV. You would just make it more accessible, you fund domestic production and development of EVs.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            3 months ago

            Lmao

            Mutual defense and deterrent to invasion by hostile world powers both in and outside of NATO is a bad thing? Sure, okay pal.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              .

              Also, don’t send us reports just because you don’t agree with someone. We’re not here to censor people for you.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Oh no! So you want to talk about how the mutual self defence pact is somehow oppressing you or will you just keep dodging forever?

                • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Nato is as much a “mutual defense” pact as sea lions are lions. These guys bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and countless other nations. The members of Nato have repeatedly cooperated with each other, using the military networks built through the alliance to wage proxy wars, perform coups, destabilise regions of the world at a scale never before seen in human history.

                  You might as well call the axis a mutual defense alliance lmao.

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Reason: User threatens me not to report his alt accounts for misinformation again

                  What alt accounts? What are you even talking about? That’s two bullshit reports in one day, wasting our time.

                  Reason: Claimes NATO forces other nations into subservience.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s an alliance between Imperialist countries, and the alliance itself has Nazi origins and has had Nazi leaders. Yes, it’s a bad thing, because Imperialism is a bad thing.

              It’s a gang of countries that hyper-exploit the Global South in mutual defense against said Global South.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                It’s literally only function is a deterrent to war, including by members against others as they will not gain NATO support unless they are attacked.

                Its members might exploit, but thats a meaningless statement about NATO itself because without NATO there would literally be more war.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s literally only function is a deterrent to war, including by members against others as they will not gain NATO support unless they are attacked.

                  It’s expansionist against the wishes of outside countries, and NATO exerts military pressure on the Global South.

                  Its members might exploit, but thats a meaningless statement about NATO itself because without NATO there would literally be more war.

                  Bzzzzt wrong. NATO’s only function is to preserve Western Hegemony and dominate the Global South militarily, so that member-States can continue exploiting ruthlessly unopposed. This results in proxy wars, such as the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

                  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It’s expansionist against the wishes of outside countries

                    this isn’t super accurate, joining nato has some pretty strict requirements, and besides yeeting NATO would be like the west completely nuking china and russia because “they did a human rights violation” it’s just a dogwhistle lmao.

                  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Its not expansionist because you have to request to join.

                    The only objecting countries whose wishes you’re referring to are nations who want to invade potential NATO members.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I’ve got bad news for you: a lot of us are anti-NATO.

          Also, what the hell is anti-trade? Do you want every Westphalian state to build a wall around itself?

          Edit to add: Oh I see, you created this new account because @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today got permabanned from lemmy.ml 😂 Let’s see how long this one lasts…

        • graphene@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Ah yes, free trade, the thing that improved the economies of ex-communist countries after the USSRs collapse and is on the path to fixing almost every African nations poverty.

          Ah yes, NATO, the “we will only call for (and maybe possibly do something to enforce) human rights if it’s convenient for us” alliance. And I’m sure all it’s member nations have squeaky clean track records when it comes to international politics.

          We must ban anyone against these things! That’s dangerous extremist ideology

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            NATO’s only function is mutual defense, NATO support ends when a member attacks.

            Since the only thing NATO does is prevent War, the only anti-NATO stance is a pro-war stance.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Are you referring to the coalition of some NATO members and some non-NATO members (19 nations total) enforcing a United Nations Security Council decision to make an immediate ceasefire and end the civil war in Libya?

                The one with zero troops on the ground?

                Being in NATO had no impact on the events, NATO member support was not mandatory as per the terms of NATO. The only reason they even call it a NATO operarion was because Itally would only vote in favor of the operation if NATO members were in charge instead of France.

                • IAmNotACat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The reason for NATO’s involvement is quite irrelevant because they were still happy to step in and do the work. The fact is that it was ultimately NATO-led and their efforts did not lead to peace in the region.

                  To call NATO’s involvement in Libya ‘anti-war’ is sheer lunacy.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Well I certainly could make comparisons but thats a little irrelevnt. The core of my statement is that Lemmy doesn’t operate the way Twitter does.

                For me “the fuck is that question” is just a colloquial expression of confusion, not anger.