Just check their comment history for like 30 seconds. Everyone makes a joke that misses the mark every now and then, but the shittiest people usually constantly spew their nonsense.
Or just don’t look at people’s post history you creep?
Most of your comments have negative points. I wouldn’t value anything you have to say.
That’s why they are against reading other users’ post history.
Lmao
This is an excellent way to get everyone looking at your comment/post history. You played yourself.
I don’t find it creepy to read a person’s posts that were willingly submitted to a public forum.
If you just browse through your home feed, sure. But actively going out of your way to see someone’s comment or post history because you don’t agree with what they said is childish and frankly a bit concerning. It really shows your character.
Wow, hmm… This is such a good comment to shitpost under but I’m not sure what angle to take. The fact you seem to be upset people publicly can get on a public website in public and look at the public posts the user posted in a public forum in public is a good one. But also the whole “just because they said a bunch of shit about hating the Jews doesn’t mean you should look at their post history you creep!” is a good one too. Now though, Im just wondering what you have to hide? So… I guess let’s take a look at your post history 🤷
Edit: Ohhhh… I found it everyone. He/she/they/zem doesn’t want people to know they don’t like LGBT people that much.
Oh trust me, if you do look through mine (which I also don’t see the point of) you won’t find much, just me talking shit about android apps
That’s not all you’ll find now is it? Apparently you don’t have the greatest view in LGBT people? I’m a shitposter, but not a prick. So I genuinely would like to know your controversial opinions on LGBT and give you the space to say your opinions and defend them. Like why is Pride Month “unwarranted”?
And also that time you refused to finish a book series because it had a gay and a nonbinary character in it
I do it all the time. I mainly do it to make sure I’m not arguing against a literal child. There’s many reasons why one might look at a person’s post history.
I never do, in fact I’m really surprised that a forum that’s supposedly all about privacy doesn’t offer something as simple as hiding profiles.
Definitely do. Sometimes it’s the only way to know whether someone just had one bad take, or if they’re genuinely awful and not worth your time to reply to
The shit posters drive a wedge in a community and the people who don’t like the “innocent” jokes leave. This makes fertile ground for ideological take over. Rinse and repeat in Fandoms, subreddits, message boards, etc.
Relevant video
I totally anticipated an Innuendo Studios link and wasn’t disappointed. Bravo.
oh I havent been aware of them, what a great watch.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/P55t6eryY3g
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Thanks, with piped I can watch the video in the EU without loging in.
attabot
Alternatively, the people who are so brittle that shit-posting causes them to somehow turn on half of the community were always going to volatile puritans.
Except it’s not so black and white. Crude jokes can be funny and unfunny. Shit-posting is one thing but offensive jokes just often repeat themselves and I can understand wanting something new every now and then.
What? Maybe some people join communities for fun and togetherness. Not amateur hour jew jokes or whatever.
I agree. But the discussion was shit-posting, not racist jokes, or am I missing something?
A careful read of the meme shows were talking about edgy, borderline right wing shit postings.
Removed by mod
“Everyone who disagrees with my narrow worldview is mentally unwell, and other stories for children on the internet”
Written by self-isolation With illustrations by social media Featuring a forward by my racist uncle who would sneak me beers at family picnics
Very enlightening meme you have added to the conversation.
Schizo*
There is such a thing as a “non-extremist” right-winger?
Yes, Joe Biden.
He looked pretty extremist to me when he helped the Bush regime lie their way into Iraq. And the guy literally chose a pig to be his running mate.
Doesn’t get more extreme than that - him pretending to be “nicer” than the more overt right-wingers doesn’t change that.
I’m not absolving him of anything, I’m expressing a disdain for Democrats masquerading as a left leaning party.
Okay.
Probably the LibDems in the UK—A mostly inert centre-right party
The probability of encountering a “non-extremist” right-winger is exactly the same as of encountering a “non-extremist” left-winger and is quite small. The vast majority of people are moderates, either left or right leaning.
Also, from the European perspective, the American left aka Democrats are quite right leaning :)
Oh look… an “enlightened centrist” has shown up to run interference for the right-wingers.
Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish center from right. I wonder how you drive if you can’t into directions.
“Centrist” is such nonsense without further context.
If youre a centrist between the democrats and Republicans, you’re basically a fascist.
If you’re a centrist between an anarchist and a marxist leninist then you’re left wing.
I’m a centrist… between the ultras and the rightists
Hey look, a fascist word! Actually that’s quite offensive to hear, for an European, who’s family suffered from literal fascism. And the Americans now just throwing the word left and right and label people they disagree with. Sad.
Also I view both US Democrats and US Republicans as right wingers.
To give you more context: I support individual liberty, equal rights, welfare state in form of social healthcare and education; I oppose authoritarian ideologies; I believe in free market with some regulation to prevent exploiting and guarantee positive liberties, such as health; I support direct democracy, decentralization and non-interventionist policy.
I would characterize my political alignment as in between social democrat and social libertarian.
My family also suffered from fascism, I do not use the word lightly.
I oppose authoritarian ideologies
Cool, so you oppose any ideology which has private (as opposed to personal) property rights that are enforced through state violence?
I oppose authoritarian ideologies; I believe in free market
Curious, you oppose authoritarian ideologies but are happy to let a dictatorship of capital and inherited wealth suck up everything except the table scraps.
Not a European or American here, but I love how Europeans shit on Americans as though the continent wasn’t full of collaborators and haven’t seen a rightward turn since the collapse of the USSR
Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish politics from vehicular activity. I wonder how you manage to drive anywhere without ever turning left.
Left extremism: everyone should be treated with dignity and we should live in an actual democracy or concensus based society(as opposed to bourgeois democracy which is empirically an oligarchy), and we shouldn’t be unwilling to use violence toward those goals(except some are radical pacifists)
Right Extremists: women should be forced to sleep with me and minorities should be gassed or used for slave labor. Also I should be exploited by my boss harder.
Enlightened centrist: I cannot tell the difference between these two things
Honestly tells us more about “centrists” than anything else.
Both words, “extremist” and “right-wing”, have no real hard definitions.
Is being socially conservative right wing? Is supporting capitalism right wing? Is inertia right wing? Is being progressive and, for example, anti-racist and pro-trans left wing? Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?
What about extremism? Is someone an extremist if they condone violence? Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally? Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?
Since these terms have no real definitions, it’s just shit-slinging.
Both words, “extremist” and “right-wing”, have no real hard definitions.
No, right-wing ideology has a very hard and clear-cut definition - all politics that protects power and privilege. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Is being socially conservative right wing?
It’s not supposed to be… but the only people self-applying the term in the US are fascists.
Is supporting capitalism right wing?
Yes. Period.
anti-racist and pro-trans left wing?
That’s not progressive - that’s radicalism.
Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?
Yes.
Is someone an extremist if they condone violence?
No.
Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally?
No, that’s radicalism.
Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?
No.
Okay, cool, those are your opinion. There is no common ground on these definitions. I may agree with many of those, I may not agree with others, but after all these are just our opinions.
We both know that different people use these terms differently. The German political education ministry for example defines extremism as any anticonstitutional movement, and goes on to mention “caring too much about anti-fascism” as a form of left-wing extremism: Source Meanwhile, they define radicalism as an ideology unwilling to compromise their positions… or someone who seeks to combat the root of a societal ill. Source
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream, and even “conflate” it with radicalism: Source Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”, whatever those are, along with specifically mentioning people who condone the loss of British soldiers: Source
I am sure that many, many people would disagree with these definitions both inside and outside of these countries, let alone across political ideologies. No matter how strongly you feel about defining these words to your liking, fact is that they do not have clear definitions and are useless in any kind of serious debate. As long as a pro-capitalist queer activist is considered left-wing by about half the population and right-wing by the other, there cannot be common ground.
There is no common ground on these definitions.
Yes, they’ve spent trillions on propaganda machines to make sure no clear meaning can be ascribed to rather simple political concepts. That doesn’t stop us from discovering their actual meanings at all.
We both know that different people use these terms differently.
Yes. See above.
The German political education ministry for example defines extremism
Sooo… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream
So, again… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”,
And… more of the same?
fact is that they do not have clear definitions
That’s because “definitions” are utterly useless. What isn’t useless is the meaning without which these political concepts cease to serve any purpose - and no amount of “muddying the water” will be able to rob them of that.
But you don’t have the authority over words. Words don’t have innate meaning given to them by some God; their meaning is defined by usage. And it’s very obvious that people use these terms very differently.
They do not have a meaning, since almost each native speaker uses them differently. You are not the authority over their meaning, no matter how righteous you think yourself, and neither do I. Meaning is defined by popular usage.
But you don’t have the authority over words.
I have said nothing about authority. You, on the other hand…
their meaning is defined by usage
…ascribe those with the deepest pockets and vilest agendas the power to “define” the meaning of terms for you. Fox News gets to “define” the usage of the term socialism as “gubment doing stuff” (or whatever white supremacist nazi crack-pipe logic they are peddling these days) - but that doesn’t rob the term socialism of it’s actual meaning in any way or shape whatsoever. Fox News doesn’t get to wipe away hundreds of years of socialist theory - that’s why their ilk are resorting to burning books. They have failed to strip meaning from ideas despite all the trillions they have spent on their propaganda - so now they are resorting to the age-old tactic of simply attampting to prevent people from coming into contact with said meaning in the first place.
The exact same goes for what is “left” or “right,” or that which is “radical” or “reactionary” - usage does not dictate meaning. The distance between the usage and the actual meaning of a term merely demonstrates the intelectual integrity (or lack thereof) and/or understanding (or lack therof) of the user.
There is no “actual meaning”. There is no “using words wrong”. You do not understand how human language works. Language is defined by its users, not by you, or a dictionary, or a historian.
The “extremist” part of Right wing “extremist” is meaningless. All reactionary politics are extreme, whether they take the active form of stochastic terror or they take the passive form of
social murder(as defined by Engels in 1845, see below). The plausible deniability employed by reactionaries as camouflage among jokes is extremely transparent to anyone familiar enough with it.
Shitposters are definitely not innocent.
I would also replace it with trolls because comments in that territory are consistently on or over the line.
The problem is the red ones take the orange ones seriously. Please don’t feed the trolls.
Respectfully mention that it’s kinda insensitive, kinda like, “hey man, don’t you think that’s kinda insensitive?” and you’ll probably figure out fairly quickly which one is the answer. Additionally, if they legit don’t know why it’s insensitive, then you can educate them!
Just remember that tone can be difficult to convey on the internet, and sometimes you have to exaggerate the intended tone for it to be understood. Additionally, in my experience, asking the question from the other person’s perspective (“don’t you think that’s kinda insensitive” vs “I think that’s kinda insensitive”) seems to help a lot.
I hate concern trolls even more than I do being confused with a nazi, and I’m pretty average so ymmv
How about just deal with it? Internet is meant to be free space, that includes racists, bigots, rednecks, people you disagree with.
Lemmy is worried about 1984 but in actuality is becoming Fahrenheit 451.
Lemmy is worried about 1984 but in actuality is becoming Fahrenheit 451.
I don’t think you’ve read either book because that analogy makes absolutely no sense.
I’ll make the analogy more clear to you. In 1984 the government got absolute information control, thats what you guys are worried about. In Fahrenheit 451 people themselves censored everything that offended anyone, eventually leading to all the books being burnt.
People have opinions, and lemmy is becoming a worse echochamber than reddit.
My brother in Christ, you are conflating free speech with the freedom from consequences. You are free to express your opinions. You will not be arrested for that. You can use the internet however you wish to express whatever opinions you have, no matter how stupid or hateful they are.
However, if your opinion sucks, the community will “deal with it” by down voting your dumb ass, and if you piss enough people off, you’ll get banned. Your rights have not been infringed. You’re just an asshole and people don’t want to listen to you anymore. You can freely go complain about it somewhere else.
I’m sure there is a community on the Internet that would welcome your shitty opinions into their little echo chamber. Go there if you don’t like it here. Or, as you say: “deal with it”.
That’s exactly how I feel sometimes. And you can replace right wing extremist with misogynist, it still works.
That venn diagram is basically a circle anyway
Tough
It really has come to that…
And hard to say
Just don’t punch down. Simple as.
I only punch interdimensionally. Damn those lazy Gorblecks.
Define punching down.
Is it economic power? 400e minimum wage here
Is it history? 400 years of Asian/African colonialism
Privilege? Amazon, any official manufacturer site and PayPal don’t work here. We just got Google Pay and Apple Pay.
Slavery? The word slave originates from the word Slav and we had nothing to do with colonialism.
I’m a white European and I am way less privileged than any US minority, technically we Slavs are also POC in the US.
So I technically can’t punch down on Americans. These kinds of things are dumb since you can’t know someone’s ethnicity, race, sex, country, etc. online.
So I technically can’t punch down on Americans
Black trans women in the United States are routinely assaulted and raped and have an HIV+ rate of 60%. You sure about that?
My point is that targeting vulnerable groups for humor isn’t funny, it’s just bullying and it’s sad. It shouldn’t be a controversial point.
Poe’s Law. Without a sarcasm tag it’s impossible to know if the person is being sarcastic or is that extreme.
This is why I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I’d rather look naive than make uptight assumptions. Plus, I’m a reddit refugee, and I’ve HAD IT with pedants and the rampant holier-than-thou crap.
