Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)LA
Posts
0
Comments
164
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Oh I see now why you're so adamant about giving nazis a platform, you identify with a lot of their views. You spout a lot of the same lies, whether it's about drag Queen's or trans people (I recognize you from your bigoted comments in another thread). Just goes to show how effective those lies are on people like you, assuming you aren't maliciously spreading them that is. Hanlon's razor and all that.

  • I don't know about the reasoning behind that one specifically, but most leftists I know generally don't have an issue with that scene because the butt of the joke is the guy inadvertently looking like he's doing blackface, not black people. If I had to guess, in a lot of cases like those, it's a corporate decision made by higher ups who don't understand the nuance of the topic and just want to avoid controversy or try to shallowly virtue signal regardless of how offensive the scene actually was or whether the people they're virtue signalling to actually wanted them to do it or not.

  • They didn't say anything about feeling morally superior, they just explained where and why many vegans differentiate between plants, bacteria, and animals. And let's not pretend that other people, including non vegans, don't also draw these lines at any other point, and don't only bring up these supposed areas of debate whenever veganism is brought up. It's a personal choice based on personal motivations, just because someone holds a different view from you that doesn't automatically mean they feel superior to you. This comment is giving me the feeling you're just looking for an excuse to rag on vegans, when they're not even the ones who started the discussion.

  • I'm not sure what you expect vegans to eat then. They can only reduce the harm they cause so much. Drawing the line at creatures that move around and actively interact with their environment, including avoiding injury and reacting to negative stimulus, is easier than trying to subsist on, like, nothing. As for bacteria, we can't like, see them, or avoid them. It's literally impossible to not ingest them. Plus the only time we actually target bacteria is when it's harming us, and it's not like vegans don't believe in enacting self defense against something that attacked you first. But we can pretty easily avoid eating jellyfish. It in fact takes more effort to eat jellyfish than it does to not eat jellyfish. I mean you can try to get pedantic about it, like whether plants avoid negative stimulus or whatever, but again, vegans have to eat something, or they'd, y'know, die. Jellyfish can have an observable avoidant reaction to harm. It's a relatively simple line to draw when you have to draw one somewhere.

    And no, you can't hurt a chair, because a chair is an inanimate object. There are humans who don't have the ability to feel pain, but that doesn't mean that they can't be hurt, as in harmed. It also doesn't make them the same as a chair.

  • It doesn't say anywhere in that article that leftists are trying to censor that scene, John just mentions other actors he knows personally who suggested that he cut it out of worry that it would be viewed as offensive. Not because people on the left actually called it offensive or called for it to be censored. So according to that article, nobody tried to censor it, just suggested that Cleese cut it, and their reasoning wasn't because it's offensive, but because they were worried that it might be considered offensive. It also mentions in that article how religious groups were the ones actually trying to censor the movie in the past. Cleese didn't want to cut that scene, so he didn't. It wasn't at risk of being censored considering he'd never had any intention of cutting it and the choice was always his to make.

  • They are a living creature, so no, eating them is not vegan. It's not about the capacity of the animal to feel pain, it's about the capacity of humans to harm animals that most vegans take issue with, at least most that I know. Just because something can't feel pain, does that mean we should hurt it? I'm not vegan myself, and I don't think it's inherently wrong for omnivores to eat meat, but I do think that it doesn't matter if the animal can supposedly feel pain or not. We don't need to go looking for excuses to hurt other living creatures needlessly.

  • Oh I'm sorry, I forgot people like you only understand buzzwords and article titles. I didn't consider dumbing down my response detailing the intricacies of a complex political idiology that has a long and complicated history, but I guess I just overestimated your intelligence. My bad!

  • Oh let me count the ways.

    For one, they lie. They lie, lie, lie. Nazi's lie more naturally than they breath. What they want more than anything is a platform to spread those lies to people who are vulnerable to those lies. Hitler didn't seize power, he was elected into it.

    They want a platform, any platform, for mainly 2 reasons, neither of which are for the sake of logical debate or upholding freedom of speech:

    1. to spread their propaganda, which again is full of manipulative lies that feed on pre-existing biases. People don't become radicalized from nothing, they're fed a specific narrative that leads them down a road of reasoning that feels, to those people, like it makes sense, until they're in too deep to be willing to consider that they're wrong.
    2. to UNIFY disparate groups that share their views or are at least willing to brush elbows with the nazi party to achieve their ends. This unification of disparate groups can lend them a lot more strength and influence than they'd otherwise have if they were kept separate. They want a platform that let's them, essentially, stand up on stage with a microphone going "alright, hands up if you share some of these views and are willing to go along with the rest as long as you get what you want in the end". Now they won't state the worst of their views outright, they'll just couch them in nicer terms, but people who share them will recognize them. And even those who don't agree with the extreme versions of those views are just targets ripe for radicalization.

    So then not only do they have a platform, but they have larger numbers flocking to this platform, which gives their voices more weight, and makes them feel more supported in their views. It makes them seem more reasonable, more legitimate. It makes them more appealing. They don't just stand up at the podium and say "gas the Jews", because they're not being honest. They say stuff like "I just think we should be concerned about how many Jewish people are in positions of power, using that power to their own ends. I just think it's strange, that's all. That doesn't mean I'm advocating violence. I'm just asking questions, I just have concerns." and they're not advocating violence technically, yet. Not in public at least. And if you say" hey that sounds awfully anti-Semitic" they deflect. "it's just an observation of a fact. Apparently facts are anti-Semitic now". They have any number of excuses ready for why their views don't actually count as being anti-Semitic, and if you say otherwise, we'll, you're just trying to silence them. Because that's the thing, once they've established themselves, they can start saying that anyone calling them out is against free speech, and use that to start shutting down dessenting voices. They don't actually care about discussing their views, most of the time they know that their views are extreme, that's why they couch them in nicer, less honest terms all the time. They don't care. They just want to gain as much influence and power as possible, and they'll use any platform they can get their hands on to do it. If you aren't aware of their tactics and how they work, then it can be difficult to spot what they're doing, and most people haven't done research on the subject and thus won't recognize the dog whistles and manipulation. And their targets aren't always the Jews, sometimes they're other groups, like trans people, or left wing groups, or the gays, etc. They might even pick and choose based on whatever gets them more traction at the time. Jews are just their most well known and popular target. But the nazis ultimate goal as a movement/idiology isn't specifically to get rid of Jews, it's to gain power. The Jews were just an easy target at the height of their power.

    Some examples of dog whistles that have been particularly relevant in recent years include calling an entire demographic "groomers" or "pedophiles" and associating then with pedophilia. Claiming that they're just concerned about protecting a specific vulnerable demographic (this demographic may or may not actually be vulnerable) from a perceived threat. Their favourite demographic is commonly women, children, or in the case of more racist actors, they may be trying to protect their heritage, their genes, their population, their jobs, etc. People who tout the great replacement theory are heavily intertwined with nazi ideology for example, if they're not just outright nazis. The target of their ire doesn't really matter, they just need some sort of enemy or boogieman to unite people against, including people who might not otherwise cooperate or associate with them. See how nazis have been cozying up with terf groups, or religious groups, or anti-abortion groups for example.

    They especially like to take advantage of economic or political strife to get their feet in the door. That strife creates desperation, makes people more susceptible to propaganda that promises a solution and gives them an easy enemy to fight against and a strong group to follow and team up with. Then that group promises that they're the ones who see the dangers of said enemy, and will thus be the ones to actually do something about it.

    Hitler didn't get popular in a day. He had to build his credibility over time, and giving someone a platform makes them appear more credible no matter how ridiculous you think their claims might seem. And if they catch the ears of enough important people, then they can really utilize their influence.

    They aren't coming to these places of free speech to debate in good faith, they're coming to find targets, victims, and likeminded people who will group together with them. They're coming for visibility, and to have more ears to spread their lies to. And those lies can be very convincing to people who are in an easily influenced state of mind, like after a crisis, or an upheaval in their way of life, or if they feel like they're threatened in some way. They're master manipulators, gaslighters, and abusers. Maybe not every individual member, but the movement as a whole isn't the obvious guy carrying a nazi flag and yelling "death to all Jews" in front of government buildings on the news. More often than not those guys are used as a smoke screen, so less obvious nazis can point at those guys and say "see? I'm nothing like him, I'm much more reasonable. So obviously, I can't be a nazi." even though they absolutely agree with those guys and feel the same way privately.

    Providing a platform for free speech and debate only works if everyone who comes to that platform also believes in free speech, and is acting in good faith. Nazis, as a rule, do not act in good faith. Their goal is to commandeer your platform to gain power and erode the rights of others until they are the ones standing at the top and controlling what is allowed to be said. It doesn't matter how much you try to point out flaws in their logic, or provide actual rational arguments. Engaging with their talking points is meaningless. They'll only move the goalposts, or use the most vague convoluted stances that aren't easily engaged with or debunked. Or they'll just claim that you're wrong or lying. To them you're just a tool they're using to get what they want. By engaging with their ideas, even to point out their issues, just make them seem more legitimate. After all, you don't argue with a crazy person, or an evil person. There's no point in reasoning with people who can't be reasoned with. Therefore, Nazis must be reasonable to some degree, otherwise it wouldn't be worth debating or arguing with them, or giving them a platform to do so. Any rare case of someone who aligns with nazi views but actually wants to debate and believes in free speech is, in the eyes of nazis, a recruit waiting to happen. Letting those people expose themselves to more organized nazis is basically throwing them to the wolves and asking for them to be radicalized. Very rarely are these people successfully deradicalized in a public forum, and it's much easier for the Nazis to convince them that they're right actually than it is for others to convince them that they are wrong and that their views are bad. You will have a better chance of deradicalizing them in private.

    There's more, a lot more, too much for me to really go over in a single comment, so I recommend looking into the methods that the nazis have used both in the past as well as recent years. You will start seeing a concerning pattern in their behaviour and methods, as well as in the typical outcome if you let them weasel their way onto your platform.

  • Depends on what your interests are. If it was me I might write something, or pirate Sony Vegas pro and edit a video, or download some movies to watch, or work on a project of some sort that requires a computer, or just watch some YouTube videos in bed on a screen bigger than my phone for once.

  • I think there's a difference between someone who doesn't pay attention to politics and someone who just doesn't want to argue politics. Someone who doesn't pay attention to politics at all is too sheltered and doesn't understand the issues that have been going on and affect a lot of people, so a lot of those people don't want to date someone who won't be able to understand something vital to them and that has an effect on their lives. Especially since someone who hasn't been paying attention likely doesn't have a lot of the same principles and beliefs.

  • It just ... mutes them from you. They're going to go to their next lemmy/reddit/twitter/neighborhood/bar/whatever and say the same things.

    Well that's what I want to happen. If they're going to say that stuff then I'd rather they say it elsewhere, away from me.

  • Obviously, bans work on a website. We’re talking about a country though. It’s a closed space.

    Uh, no, we're literally talking about a website right now.

    Also way less than half the population voted for Trump lmfao.

  • Except the nazi playbook literally involves invading spaces that support free speech and commandeering them in order to silence other groups and give themselves a platform to radicalize others more easily. If you truly value free speech then you don't want to give nazis or neo-nazis a platform.

  • On my phone I like headphones for music, but I prefer the speakers for stuff like videos. I don't like my head/ears being constricted all the time, but sometimes when I want the best audio experience I'm okay with it. On good speakers like in my car or my soundbar I occasionally enjoy listening to music without headphones though. Though sometimes I like using headphones for videos too if I'm like cleaning and don't wanna carry my phone around the house while listening to a video. Or if there's a more nuanced audio factor that I wanna be able to hear better.

    I need over ear headphones. Can't stand earbuds and on ear headphones hurt my ears and make me feel like I can't hear as well.

  • I've been using liftoff the whole time, it usually only takes a handful of tries for the things that need multiple api requests, and often works after 2 or 3 tries for everything else. I'm just too lazy to resubscribe to all the communitoes I've managed to gather on my lemmy.world account lol.