When Baldur's Gate 3 came out, Steam's overall bandwidth consumption went from around 18 Tbps to 146 Tbps
Did you consider reading more than the headline blurb in the post?
The liberal justice declined to say much more about a bill that advanced out of the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of July – meant to force the Supreme Court to adopt a stronger ethics policy – for fear legal challenges surrounding the issues could someday land before the court.
I'd say it a pretty strong indicator that they shouldn't have the job they have.
Keyword: most
I think most people are like this. It's hard to hold on to actual hatred. Most of us ain't got any time for that.
Whoa summit is pretty nice. I've been using Connect but maybe not anymore.
please for the love of god stop equating political ideology and ethnicity
Explain to me the difference between advocating to murder one group and not the other. From where I'm standing, your stance lines up perfectly with a fascist's, just on the other end of the spectrum.
do you think I just stumbled onto these beliefs happily?
No, I think you were radicalized.
[Your long, pointless quote]
The person you are defending wasn't talking about any government or world power; they said "anti-tankies" who couldn't be re-educated should be killed. Who does that sound like? Next you'll be advocating for rounding up all the "anti-tankies" and putting them into "reeducation camps". Right?
I oppose it because it uses it against the working class, communists, minorities, really anybody who threatens the status quo.
So? You don't have an issue with using violence to get what you want, why is it wrong for the ""status quo"" to do the same thing? Your sophomoric stance is "violence is okay when it's used against the bad people" but who the "bad people" are is entirely subjective. Do you not see how this fails even at a conceptual level? What would you advocate someone who thinks tankies are the "bad people" do? Should they resort to violence? Is that the appropriate action? If not, why?
Let's take a slightly longer view of this. Let's say your dream comes true and "anti-tankies" are "reeducated" or killed, and the big bad ""status quo"" is finally defeated. What happens if a group of "anti-tankies" grows in your new utopia, when you're the ""status quo""? Do you resort to violence?
You are what you claim to abhor.
just find joy in murdering puppies
You have spent several comments over several hours defending murdering people; your stance has long since moved from "it was just a joke, bro" to "I agree that murdering people is the solution". Do you really not understand how that makes you appear? All this comment chain required was you to say "yeah, man, that's messed up-- calls for violence are wrong". Yet, here we are.
I have no clue if you “personally deserve violence”
What?? This was a softball question to help you redeem yourself. The only acceptable answer is "No". Holy shit.
It can't be a flawed argument if it reflects reality. So if we accept Meta's information to be accurate, then they're just stating a fact. FB users don't care about news articles, so attempts to wring money out of a third party isn't going to work, as we can see here.
I've always been dubious of the "you should pay us to send us traffic" stance that news organizations seem to take every 5 or so years. It never works out.
Because those analogies show the huge gaping flaw in this guy's stance.
we view neoliberals as largely responsible for the state of the world
Sure, and some Nazi blames the Jewish people for all the wrongs in the world. Does that mean that it's justified if a Nazi says all Jewish people should be shot in the head?
The reason I don't care about advocating for violence is because ultimately the only way for communists to come to power
And this doesn't start your spider sense tingling that maybe you're on the wrong side of things? Holy shit, do you do even half a minute of introspection? I'm sure fascists would say the same thing. Are they also justified in violence?
I don't view violence as fundamentally wrong. I abhor that it's necessary, but advocating pure non-violence in the face of a state that has shown it will murder you with no remorse is both foolish and also ignores the violence that the status quo inflicts on the poor and minorities every single day.
Do you think it's wrong that the ""status quo"" uses violence? After all, you don't view it as fundamentally wrong, right? So it's not fundamentally wrong when it's used against you, either?
Also, I'm not sure what exactly sure what you mean about you saying something negative about the far-left.
You set up a straw man about so called "ebil tankies" that I never said or even implied, to justify advocating for violence.
Here's the kicker. Take everything you said, and then look at it and tell me if I personally deserve violence. I'm generally capitalist (democratic socialist is just capitalism light). You seem to imply you have no choice but violence against me. Is this truly how feel, or is all this simply to justify some stranger getting upvoted when they advocate violence, so you don't have to admit your instance is toxic?
I'm trying to point out that it doesn't matter who you threaten to murder, or why. You aren't so radicalized that you don't see that it's wrong when it's one of the "obvious" ones like race, but somehow you've been convinced it's perfectly fine to do it when it's "anti-tankies". Does that really make sense to you? Why would one be okay and the other not, if it's just "venting" and harmless? (hint: because part of you knows it's not okay)
I never said anything negative about people on the far-left. You're projecting to deflect from something you know is wrong. I don't know if he really wants to shoot people. All I know is that he said people should be killed for what they believe.
Did.. you just use "it's just a joke, bro" again?
So as long as no specific person is threatened with rape, you should be fine with it, right? What if, instead of an ideology, they said people of a certain heritage should be shot? Still no one specific, but like, "Jewish people" or "people of color", instead of "anti-tankies". You still cool with that? If not, why not?
You misunderstand. I don't think you said anything against the rules, so the report function isn't appropriate. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that it is your understanding that lemmygrad allows calls for violence.
And you aren't going to convince me it was anything other than a call for violence. You can downplay it all you'd like but all that does is paint you in a worse light. Would you approve of "venting" about rape, too? If not, why not?
What do you mean eavesdrop? Do you understand how any of this works? It wasn't a private conversation, based on the fact that I could link directly to it.
You're free to advocate for defederation as you see fit. However, if your instance is the kind that celebrates "venting" (it was just venting, bro!) about murdering people, I'd say it's pretty incompatible with lemmy.world.
Honestly, after spending a couple minutes reading your posts and the comments on them, I found myself being reminded of the_donald on reddit.
That's advocating violence. Are you saying advocating violence isn't against lemmygrad's rules?
Edit: and how often are you going to try the "it was just a joke, bro" before it sinks in that this is not a defense?
One user advocated for violence, the comment is upvoted, and it's a top level comment on a post the guy I responded to posted, so I can be reasonably sure he saw it. So, the options we have in front of us are that he did the right thing and reported it, but the mods/admins didn't act, or he saw it and didn't report it.
Which one screams "we want these people to be federated with us"?
https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/570166
Quote:
Anti-"tankies" barely hide their racism anymore. Most anti-tankies are cowardly neoliberals (I repeat myself) that need bullets in their heads, if they can't be reformed.
"it was just a joke, bro" has never convinced anyone.
Your post history is a pretty good indicator that lemmygrad should be next up on for defederation. Additionally, it was pretty easy to find a comment on one of your posts calling for violence. Upvoted, of course.
Apparently I didn't dig deep enough! Thanks a lot for the heads up.
Who is still on the fence about whether slavery was beneficial to the slaves? Who would that debate be for?
Every once in a while I stumble upon a comment online that inadvertently reveals a lot about the person who made the comment.