darq @ darq @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

513

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yup, that's what happens whenever "civility" is the primary metric used for moderation.

Trolls post heinous nonsense, and respond to people in the most insufferable rage-bait-y manner. But if anyone so much as calls them an asshole, they get their comments removed for saying a no-no word.

Brainworms.

Steamdeck...
Steamdeck 2...
Steamde... Uh oh...

This is a display of power, and dominance. It's a taunt.

To "clarify" by both denying the claim and doubling down on the claim at the same time. To state that people taking the words as a threat are snowflakes, while immediately threatening them again. And to do it twice over, reclarifying his original threat with another one.

He knows that makes no sense. But words don't have to make sense under fascists. Only power makes sense. He knows he can get away with it. That's the point.

The journalist should have drilled him on the spot.

Even without knowledge of the source of the image, there is no reasonable way a normal person interprets that message as a genuine threat of violence.

Immediately has to pee.

Because the picture of the "gayroller 2000" is very obvious satire from the known-satire comic The Oatmeal, originally posted to satirise conservatives' baseless fears of "the gay agenda". Seeing a pattern?

On the other hand, there a pattern of hostility, hatred, and violence from conservatives towards LGBT people. This pattern is both historical and contemporary, and currently it is absurdly common for LGBT people to be called "groomers" and be accused of being dangerous to children.

Gay people obviously do not want to run over straight people with a steamroller. On the other hand, the people posting wood chipper memes... Some of them would, and have, followed through.

I quite simply do not believe that for even a second.

Let's not pretend that you actually give a damn about transgender people. This is just concern trolling.

You still have the problem of misaligned incentives

Not really sure what you mean by that. Socialism leads to better alignment of incentives. If everyone is benefitting from the system, contributions to the system are incentivised.

That is the opposite of capitalism, where the individual tries to gain any advantage they can, even at the expense of everyone else. And broad advances and contributions of work benefit very few people, by design. That leads to lower trust, which further entrenches the idea that the individual has to look out for themselves, and is thus incentivised to game to system.

together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion

I reject that premise.

A massacre, or a genocide, is more than just "one's" life ending. It is one's own life, the lives of one's loved ones, and the lives of one's people.

You know your text is still there, right? Like it’s still totally readable and still totally there.

Yes, actions, not beliefs. People can believe whatever the hell they like. They don't actually get to act on those beliefs in all cases though. They don't get to discriminate if they want to run a business in society.

Yeah, okay. I’ll just go tear down the prayer room at my work and tell everyone they have to conduct their workday the way I do from now on. It’s fine. Some darq person on the internet said we totally do this all the time and it’s way easier than respecting their inconvenient beliefs; which are void now anyway since we’re reconditioning them to be more compatible with our ideal society. Also, all veterinarians have to provide euthanasia services. Oh, and a bar can’t refuse entry to someone exercising their right to bare arms. And flatearther reconditioning camps. Actually, just all sorts of reconditioning camps. We’ll take away that individual freedom, wash those beliefs out, and get them just how we like 'em. By the end of this, they’ll have to take photographs of whatever we fucking tell 'em!

I'm going to say it again: Stop arguing with people you have imagined.

... capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn't part of the culture war.

Except we aren't talking about two people, are we? We're talking about entire populations of people.

And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.

Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.

Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don't work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we're paranoid that they might just be lazy.

We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others' throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they "don't deserve".

And yet they still would affect the rate of homelessness.

And unfortunately, that gives them power in undermining progressives.

stop enabling a broken system.

What do you mean "enabling"?

The system is broken, I fully agree. But it exists, and sadly it isn't going anywhere. Not voting is not going to change that, the system is just going to continue, unaffected, and will continue to affect people's lives. Your only options, within the system, are to minimise harm or to not do that.

The system absolutely needs to be changed. But not voting isn't going to change it. And reducing harm isn't somehow making that change more difficult.

You’ve been addressed and deemed anti-liberal as what you’ve said is in direct opposition of the protection of people’s freedoms and beliefs.

More idiotic accusations, no substance.

You in fact went on to nonchalantly say that’s fine and that you can take people’s beliefs from them and replace them

What? I've said nothing of the sort.

Stop arguing with people you have imagined.

Yawn.

The DNC would have to accept that they need to nominate a truly progressive candidate

I think they'd rather die.

I mean unironically yeah. They can basically ignore a significant part of the electorate with the threat of the Republicans coming into power if those voters don't capitulate on their interests and vote Democrat. It's a hostage situation.