That’s my point though. If you don’t ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I’m saying your argument isn’t thorough enough. It’s not going far enough. It’s scratching the surface and saying “good enough” when it doesn’t actually appear to be.

I am talking about illegal things because it’s an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you’re being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

You can’t seriously be against all censorship in books, right? Where are your actual boundaries? I don’t think you’d be ok with something obviously evil like a book of cp… Right?

Edgecases are why it’s hard to be consistent.

No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.

The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.

This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?

I think the commenter you’re replying to made some logical enough jumps.

Like it seems that they’re assuming people in Republican rural counties who start doing this to random candidates would move out, causing a localized housing crisis in that area that banks could come in and capitalize on like the vultures that they tend to act like. That would lead to the pattern that they’re painting in their comment.

So I can imagine how it’s all connected, but that said, I don’t claim to know the inner mind of this poster so I could be very wrong.

Calling me chronically online has literally no effect, but since we’re gotten to the name calling stage, allow me to respond in kind:

Next time, state your stance instead of playing shitty word games, coward. You didn’t state your stance when asked, you only responded with “what do you think”. Therefore, I told you. And now you’re trying to backpedal instead of owning the fact that you’re acting like a smug asshole instead of just changing your behavior.

It’s a shame though, we could have had an interesting conversation about this. But I guess all you have is pointless trivia and no actual opinion. Why do you even bother to talk, then? Like I’m actually asking, why did you even bother to respond “what do you think?”?

Your position and lack of answering the question implies to my naive mind that you do advocate for killing all the sheep that have been bred to need shearing. Do you not? I really can’t tell lol your stance seems to imply that would be where you land, but I would also call that pretty fucking ghoulish if that’s the case.

Since we set the world up this way, now we have a responsibility to treat the animals kindly. That’s my stance. Supply and demand is technically irrelevant. Obviously I’m gonna have an issue with factory industrialized wool though… Mistreating animals, especially species we specifically messed with through selective breeding is absolutely inexcusable. And the PETA route of annihilating all the selectively bred animals is as abhorrent as factory farming to me.

There’s an old proverb I like about this: a person is smart but people are dumb.

People en masse tend to be dumber than they are apart. I think you’re comparing yourself to the faceless masses. It’s much more humbling to try comparing yourself to someone you respect (but don’t do it as a “I’m not as good as them” thing, only do it as a “goals to maybe achieve one day” thing to avoid accidentally trashing your self esteem)

Side note: old proverb here means I think my dad said it once but I have no idea where it actually came from

Who the fuck are you to speak for me and who I support?

Speak for yourself, by yourself, dogmatic atheist.

You’re free to not like it, and free to voice your opinion but you do not speak for atheists. Go ahead and keep your fears about granting any religion legitimacy through any twisty means, but don’t be dogmatic about it and start telling other people what they do and do not support. You will be wrong every time, and deserving of every ridicule you get.

Yes, let’s go die of exposure because there’s a hole in the roof. Throw the whole house away just because there’s glaring issues with it when there’s no other viable choice in the vicinity.

What level of analogy do you need to understand that if you abandon the power you do have (ie minute nudge control of democratic establishment) you become irrelevant due to powerlessness?

To change what’s acceptable, you shift what’s considered acceptable, nip at the bits that are trying to stay with the old status quo, and repeat until you move the window to wherever you’re trying to push it. That’s how this works (if the window goes left for democrats, you would call that an “improvement”). Revolution is anomalous. Pushing for revolution and depending on the assumption of it happening leads to total powerlessness, which is less than what lefties have right now (right now I’d only call them mostly powerless).

You can’t get away from dealing with the devil when Satan created the whole system in the first place.

I got a reason! It’s because people are afraid meta is doing what Microsoft did to a much earlier project. The crux of that whole story is that Microsoft adopted the new tech, became the biggest player thus dominating the area, then, when they had full control of the tech they ended up shutting it down. Some people are convinced meta is going to do that to the fediverse.

This is vague and handwavy, I’m hoping someone actually knows the name of the project. It was early 90s I believe or maybe into the early 00s but it was before my time in the tech sphere of the internet.

You’re still acting like a bitch. I hope you’re not like this to your neighbors because they might shoot you AND your kids if shit hits the fan (but you have nothing to worry about… Right?).

Might be a bit contentious to say, but you’re really bad at protecting your young’s survival chances right now. Your selfishness actively endangers them even though this vector has no consequences right now. I hope you learn not to be an asshole to random people. It might impact more than just yourself. Granted I’m sure you’re only like this because you’re behind a keyboard, but if you said this to people in real life, I doubt you would have many reliable friends left.

1. you don’t have to understand it, you just shouldn’t be a legislative genocidal asshole about it (not that that’s what you’re doing, but that’s what republicans seem to do to anything they think isn’t their slim sliver of a definition of “normal”)

2. if you’re talking about furries, to my layman’s understanding of the subculture, that’s not how the vast majority of furries relate to themselves. From what I’ve seen, it’s not that they are the animal itself, they are the aspects of the animal, and those things are just little icons that they’re like boosting because they resonate with it. That said, there are at least a few people who DO feel that way, but I’m pretty sure they have a special category name (ferals? I think that’s what they’re called but I could be wrong, this is some deep lore I picked up years ago). If they do have that special name and I’m not just making that part up, then that implies that most furries do not feel that way about themselves.

But, acknowledging the existence of people like that at all does validate your question in my mind. I don’t really understand that extreme either. My only point is that most furries are what you would likely consider “normal”, they just have a particular hobby. It’s no more nefarious or odd than being into gender bending cosplay. You’re just taking something (yourself rather than an anime/video game character) and twisting it into something artistically different (a fursona instead of a cosplay outfit).

…no I did not intend to write that much defending furries but here we are lmao

deleted by creator

…there is a joke here that I could make about incel forums. I’m not going to try to because it’s in poor taste, but my point is that I’m pretty sure that does exist…

Also, what’s your actual position if that’s your devil’s advocate position? I’m a bit unsure if the implication there is intentional or not

The way I (layman) read it, they seemed to be saying that it would be phased out by newer companies finding different alternatives, not that everyone is phasing it out as we speak.

Does this seem more realistic? Or just completely non-factual?

Ahhhh sheesh you definitely got me there… In that case I’d like to revise my stance to be a bit safer and reduce it to just gluing the feathers to them using Elmer’s or something safer than skin peeling tar :/

Something scary and mob actiony but that doesn’t result in inevitable death.

And they have the public so disenfranchised that the public’ll just go “fucking politicians” and move on with their lives instead of grabbing the torch and pitchforks and showing these assholes what accountability for politicians used to look like in the old days. Perhaps show them why we don’t play by those rules anymore and why they shouldn’t inspire the public to continue playing by those old rules.

Note: I am euphemistically edging towards tar and feathering more so than anything else. Anything nonlethal but severe in nature and consequence, that sort of thing.

Too bad their doctrine is to take everyone else with them, instead of being as courteous as the cults that self annihilate and leave the non-followers alone.

Seriously, their own book says man was charged with taking care of the world. By their own doctrine, God is the one that will end it, not man. But they’re all either power hungry greed lords trying to take Gods destiny into their own hands or idiots who don’t know what’s in the book they thump so hard.

And we should loudly continue to compare them to those with those histories due to similarity of behavior until they change their behavior so that they will never have the chance to quietly add a similar history to their own books.

If we don’t want a “gulags of Florida” chapter written in history, it’s appropriate to call the behavior that would lead to one out

(before I begin my ramble, I understand this is pedantic as hell and nitpicky af. Please know that I’m not calling this meme bad, I’m only looking for someone who is willing to be pedantic about definitions with me for a few rounds or so.)

What exactly does “false solidarity” mean? What exactly is this particular understanding of solidarity either? To my knowledge (aka, I googled it to ensure my vibe check of what solidarity meant was about right), solidarity is something you feel and are essentially motivated to solidarity actions by. To feel it is to experience it, which means, by my understanding of what solidarity is, the term “false solidarity” seems nonsensical.

Like I know what you’re saying, I agree, the effect is that the worker works against his own interest for the betterment of the upper classes, but this phrasing seems… I don’t know exactly how to put it, but like inexact in a way that can probably be and should probably be fixed.

I would just call it poisonous solidarity (intentionally avoiding virus/illness words though) or something that simultaneously implies that it’s externally put there by an external actor, it’s bad for you, it can hurt things and people around you, but it still is legitimate solidarity. Those actions those workers are taking, those votes that they’re casting, those are all real actions caused by real feelings. Implying the feelings themselves are false seems to me to be lazy and irrational at this point… If this were the late 1800s, that probably would be the best phrasing we had for this at the time, but language evolves and I don’t think this language is illustrative/metaphorical enough to accurately portray the mechanics that our current culture allows us to portray about subjects like this.

But again, I’m not the arbiter of what’s true, correct, or what actually should happen, so what do you people think?