unironically, he ought to be next, and he better know it, and he better go quietly

I don’t think the fascism would exist if it wasn’t profitable to give it a platform.

That’s stupid!

I am shocked to see this pseudofascist apologia so highly upvoted.

It’s not the media’s coverage of the fascism that’s the problem.

You would rather deflect blame to the media than point the finger at the fascism. Shame on you.

you’re still operating on the 2014 patch, it’s 2024

you’re simplifying a complex situation

the ‘right wing’ believes climate change is a hoax. you’re struggling with a failed conception of ‘both sides’ politics. please receive a plot update.

acting like going through post history is discourse, like this, should merit a sitewide ban for 36 hours

As one of said assholes, the biggest problem I have with Lemmy is that it’s stuck trying to be both the Old Internet in which directness was prized and encouraged no matter how acerbic, and Comfort Internet for nonpartisans.

When these two crowds mix there’s going to be discomfort.

And freedom from participation in politics is hiding in privilege to some very real extent, so in some ways I don’t know how to be sympathetic to your plight.

But all politics is ragebait, isn’t it? I’ve come back to this general feeling that we need more rage, not less.

The doctrinal conflicts on the Internet are yet to be resolved. We still have the disaffected rightwing types who haven’t really had it sink in yet that they failed and their loser is and was always a loser. We still have moderate idiots who think that ‘both sides’ need to curtail their extremists.

It’s an irony that one of the Left’s strengths is dogmatism, because I do think there’s dogmatic leftists here that I find insufferable. I didn’t used to dislike male feminists as much as I do now, but let women represent women’s issues.

In the meanwhile, the leftist dogma of No Platforming Stupid Rightwing Shit needs to be more formidably advanced.

this means that if Unity sends you a bill, you don’t have to pay it, and if they take you to court, you prove that you’re acting within the terms of the license you agreed to, which keeps your lawyer fees to a manageable level because you already have all the documents you need: the contract and your source code.

I mean right? IANAL.

wow you’re an easy dupe

Too many supposedly autistic traits are present in neurotypical people. In my study of autism I’ve seen a lot of autistic chauvinism and I’m finding myself viscerally opposed to smug celebration of the challenges autism poses for the people who suffer from it.

Put bluntly, autism doesn’t prevent autistic people from falling into line and propagating “civilized” dysfunction. I enjoy the quotes this article puts around “civilized” from the standpoint of delegitimizing social approval as anything but a convenient and easily misused fiction, but not if it is used as a prop for autists to feel as if they are in any way superior.

Pride in neurodiversity is one thing, but autistic chauvinism is dangerous.

Traits which are adaptive in some contexts are maladaptive in others. Traits which when paired with other traits are sometimes more adaptive than they are by themselves.

Traits which cause interpersonal conflict are traits which cause interpersonal conflict.

is very fascist in of itself.

No. It’s not fascist to have a firm and authoritative opinion. It is, perhaps, violent and authoritarian in outlook, but conservatives have just tolerated if not endorsed an insurrection under false pretenses and those conservatives have yet to kill the traitor responsible for it, so contemplation of violence is justified because this ‘cold civil war’ as Vivek called it is not going to end with that boomer criminal in power ever again.

you tell yourself a pretty story to make you feel better

Take responsibility for yourself.

I don’t think I shall commit to the insane proposition that humans use logic, rationality, and data to make decisions and inform their behaviors when climate change is currently killing the planet’s ecosystems off. To some extent I think you’ve got a high bar to clear for that proposition to be accepted!

Jokes or half-jokes aside, it’s not a new observation that people rationalize their politics after having decided what it is they feel. I’ve seen too much consensus reality with completely reasonable paragraph after paragraph to take reason all that seriously.

But I do believe that people are ‘reasonable’ in the way that you say: we don’t go around doing things just because (and to the extent that we do, it’s a good thing!). It’s when a group of people gather around a list of reasons that become an ideology that I start to get twitchy.

Feminism is a great movement but men who apply it as an ideology have missed something fundamental about the basis for reason in the expression of emotion.

And all (well, most) of that is well and good! But:

I will reiterate again that using your trauma as an excuse to hold bigoted views is childish and that it shouldn’t be encouraged.

All politics is trauma mitigation. And you don’t get to tell people that they should just not have their trauma, that they can not bring their trauma to the discussion table, because that isn’t actually mitigating the trauma, just suppressing it. Since trauma is experienced intersectionally the unpacking of that trauma necessarily occurs contra another intersection.

If the contest is over who gets to unpack their trauma, you aren’t going to succeed at bringing everyone to the table by forcing one ideology (in this case, ‘feminism-for-everyone’) into a position that is untenably ‘omnivorous’ (because it contradicts with ‘feminism-for-women’).

And there is this spectre in your thinking: there is no pure thought, there is no position free from bias, there is no exculpation you can perform to absolve yourself from contamination with the bigotry attendant upon trauma. You can’t ask someone who has been robbed at gunpoint by a Black person to be less afraid of Black neighborhoods, regardless of the hurtful bigotry of their acquired bias.

As I heard it, you don’t get to have a place free of racism. You can only mitigate its destructive effects.

Because of this, the online tendency to gather ideology into a perfect model rational reasonable list of beliefs is doomed.

Guiding and directing policy are no different for someone who doesn’t hold office.

I think this is plain wrong but I’m having difficulty articulating precisely why.

I have explicitly told you I don’t care if I come off as unreasonable, so what’s your problem?

I don’t think you’ve understood what I’m trying to say.

If a woman’s experience with most of the men in their life is that men are violent rapists, then you had damn well better not tell those women that their rage is childish and shouldn’t be encouraged. Should that rage be allowed to guide policy? Yes. Should that rage be allowed to direct policy? No.

And what I do is speak with anti-women men online without trying to convert them to an ideology which is based around helping women.

Don’t gatekeep assistance by setting an arbitrary bar. It’s unhelpful.

fuck off? like do you understand how incoherent you are here? no, how could you, your entire ideology is based on the incoherent contradiction of feminism-for-women and feminism-for-everyone.

This is weak.

Then read it again. And don’t police tone.