notsoshaihulud @ notsoshaihulud @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

366

Joined

6 mo. ago

affordable education and universal healthcare would be popular drawing forces.

This reads like arguing for sake of arguing because calling out nazis as liars about their interest in free speech has got to mean abandoning freedom of speech.

application of ethical principles may change

We could go on and on, but this is a nice summary statement here. Thank you.

Is it too early to call it the Trump Slump?

No fucking way anti-oligarchy is the future of the party.

We'll see. It would be quite tragicomical after they just got punished for moving towards the center like the second humiliating time around. At least Bernie's showing the path.

at least during his first presidency he had a well-oiled infrastructure to rationalize and capitalize on any bullshit that came out of his mouth. He doesn't have those people around anymore.

Also this is why I've given up on "conservative intellectuals". They claim interesting things that could make sense in certain contexts (even if I disagree with those), but the moment trump says something, they abandon these values and bend over backwards to rationalize his stupid shit.

How am I even supposed to talk to you if you refuse to clarify your specific problems?

You can always send a DM. I'm done with this thread, people seem a little too much into movements but don't understand how to make them appealing😂

The democratic socialist is a label Bernie used to describe himself in the past. I'm not into populism, and consider that social welfare policies only work in a lasting way if people value and respect them, and some of that come with compromises that society has to reach a consensus on.

Also, I don't "need to specify" anything to you and if y'all think that you can afford to attack people for being slightly misaligned with your values don't be surprised about failing to build a movement.

America is way too far fucking right wing, that’s insane

It generally is, especially from the European perspective but not entirely. If we put aside present republican posturing, the USA is very immigration-friendly right and left whereas in Europe the right wing is extremely against any kind of immigration.

How in the fuck is Bernie too far left for you?

You guys are way too inclined to think in extremes. Slight = difference between democratic socialist vs. social democrat.

Guess what you’re the next iteration of? Technologies change, yet good principles don’t change with them.

Technologies and ethics continuously change and adapt to new technologies, and I'm not interested in discussing the analogies of going from codexes to printed books vs. going from printed hard copies to human-human interactions being hijacked by human-passing bots, because to me these are evidently not comparable.

No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms.

The fact that this discussion is taking place on Lemmy and not Xitter tells plenty about the actual complexities of this story.

nobody called Bernie bad here...

yawn.

Edit: if you go on calling people "part of the problem" for considering Bernie slightly to their left in a post that praises him, then you are actually part of the problem and you don't even realize it.

no. it's a "don't believe them because they are lying" thing.

Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.

If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.

Look, statements like this are very easy to make but nearly impossible to implement in the era of LLM-powered bots riding the Algorithm. Unless you simply give free rein to the bots, which is often the goal and ultimately eliminates actual humans' free speech. I don't pretend that I have a perfect solution, but there is sufficient historical evidence to point out the threads' original statement on absolutistic terms. For the rest, I've used the word "some" because not everybody has ulterior motives, but the most motivated ones in the present era tend to.

Fascism is slightly more diverse and thus adds more opportunities for apologists to relativize. Hence the specific choice.

This is even lamer than his usual couch theatrics about feigning being "diSrEspeCtEd!!!1!!!". This comes off as Vance being this soft and weak couch potato who feels threatened even by the sight of signs. Considering how little concern he showed about Ukrainian children being "confronted" by russian missiles, he is now eligible for my prayers. He still have to work for my thoughts though.

yeah it's a philosophical question the answer to which changes with the times (like, does free speech/expression even mean the same thing in the 1700s as in the present era where "speech" is delivered and amplified by machines without even the necessity of direct human involvement).

I would have reported the pic for gore, but I think hiding it under spoiler is fair game. What humanity should have learned from this story is that just because ideologies that consider fairness or empathy a weakness might appear viable and effective to grab power quickly, we have plenty of gory evidence that they do lead to the annihilation of millions, including those initially benefiting from them.

I know reading comprehension is harder when you've already made up your mind about what I think, but you're better than this. I hope.:)

I really find it statistically baffling how many times that is the first response...sophisticated sounding titles works for you until you actually have to explain things.

The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives. No more, but definitely no less. I'm not here to relitigate the limits of free speech no matter how hard you want to steer the discussion in that direction.

On the other hand, if you come to discussions with this many preconceived notions and generalizations wrapped in a metric ton of condescension, then perhaps you might be the driver of your own "statistical bafflement".

America has litigated this multiple times & you had strong arguments from both sides, but in the end free speech won & I believe it was the right choice. I’d suggest you actually study history & those trials a bit more.

You are assuming ignorance from others while projecting ideas from other discussions you've had in the past onto my original post. I purposely avoided making any statements on how to approach or resolve the tolerance paradox because it's complicated. Nazis lying about their affinity for free speech isn't.