I think it is far more likely that some other country would fall out of our good graces than that the US government might become anti-Israeli-genocide.
(I am not saying you’re wrong as far as the Israeli calculus or that factoring into their decision. Just that, as far as my own calculus, they don’t really have any need to get concerned.)
In some theoretical future history book, there is a whole section of one chapter devoted to how the collapse of the US was that calamitous event that in the end ushered in a new age, much more civilized and laid on more solid foundations than the capitalist wasteland that had defined the previous 100-150 years or so.
Everyone stopped waiting for someone else to solve climate change. Everyone stopped assuming someone else would see to their country’s geopolitical security. Around the world, citizens of the comfortable countries realized they had to seize the reins of their own governments, or a tsunami of social-media slop and campaign contributions would seize it away from them. And they looked at the wreckage between the Atlantic and Pacific and said, Jesus Christ, fuck no, that’s not happening here. And then they got to work. Enabled by a glut of highly qualified people fleeing from the horror and into any role that could be created for them in science and public policy. And, it fucking worked, and things finally started going in the right direction in a sustained fashion.
There are other outcomes, of course. That is one of a few different possibilities.
It’s actually a very telling carve-out, and I have no idea what it’s doing so far down in the article. It should have been front and center.
The only two logical conclusions I can see are:
I very much suspect that it’s the second one. Which indicates that the lock-in was an intentional decision, and one that actually would make quite a bit of sense on reflection.
If you care about privacy, don’t use biometrics.
It is sad because it is less convenient, but that’s what’s up.
But if, say, an official says he thinks something about how Trump is running things, that’s interesting. If a new poll comes out about sentiment amongst voters about how Trump is running things, that’s interesting. And Rachel Maddow blogs, which I share in @opeds@thelemmy.club here and there are, if not interesting, at the very least a perspective shared by a non-insignificant portion of the population.
You know good and well that none of any of that is what I am talking about, or the reason people are giving you static about your postings.
Correct. I’m not going to run around sharing links to conspiracy theories, that is completely different.
Yeah, in hindsight I wasn’t entirely correct
…
I’m not going to run around sharing links to conspiracy theories
You told me that people of certain ethnicities weren’t getting prosecuted in some jurisdictions, because the DA had just decided that they were going to be above the law because they were POC. Then when I asked for details, you said maybe that wasn’t true. But then, you listed some cities where you “have seen this happen.” I can pretty much guarantee you that it’s not happening. You’re free to show me, if you think I am wrong, but I am extremely sure that that doesn’t happen. There are things that kind of sound similar to that after a long game of right-wing-media-telephone, but I would be surprised if there is any jurisdiction anywhere in the country where the rate of POC who get charged with crimes is anything other than significantly higher than the white people.
I don’t know man. I’m not trying to jump down your throat about it. I’m just saying that it matters. People hopped-up on this kind of stuff have gone out and killed other people. This country is developing itself towards a civil war, and a lot of why it is happening isn’t because people are reading Rachel Maddow on one side and Jordan Peterson on the other side. It’s happening, more than any other single reason, because people are seeing made-up crazy nonsense online and getting themselves amped up on it. There’s a huge difference between just something that isn’t my particular polarization, and something that is both polarized and inflammatory and not even the slightest bit true (and the person who’s saying it doesn’t really seem to care whether it’s true or any of those things).
I don’t really care about the polarization part. I’m probably in a tiny minority on Lemmy in that regard. I do care about the truth part, and I would hope that a lot of the reason you’re getting flak about your postings isn’t just that they’re political in a certain way, but also that you’re unapologetically including content from known liars.
Canadian slur for Irish Catholics, apparently.
🤷
Yeah, I’m not trying to be unfriendly about it.
For the things I post, I’ll usually post them because I either 1) think that the content is probably both relevant and true, 2) it portrays a relevant perspective, or 3) is just plain interesting
But… you surely have to see how (2) and (3) are bad things, right? I’m not saying you necessarily mean any harm, but this whole explanation that something is “a perspective” or “interesting” and so that means it’s okay if it doesn’t fall into the category of “true” is… it’s not good. There’s a lot of deliberately misleading stuff out there.
There are a lot of people in the US getting amped-up over some thing that they saw online that’s total fabricated nonsense. People have died as a result. It really matters whether stuff is true. I know it is sort of popular in some circles to retreat into a kind of landscape where it’s not all that important, everything’s just a perspective, if the stuff starts getting challenged, but it is important. Perspective is perspective, and truth and falsehood are truth and falsehood. They’re not the same.
I mean just someone explaining their take on things is fine. Maybe that’s what you mean by (2). Something doesn’t have to be “objective” to be based in fact and reality. I guess my beef is more with the stuff where it’s treated as not that important that the factual backing is not there or just imaginary.
Edit: Also, the point of Rule 6 was to reduce spam, as my communities were starting to get brigaded by leftists basically saying “fake news” verbatim in the comment sections of certain news posts. I don’t like those types of rules, but it seems necessary for now since it keeps happening.
Yeah, I do get that. I would rather have some kind of productive conversation about it. I don’t think it’s really all that useful to just have two sides yelling at each other whichever side anybody happens to be on.
No this is a thing in blue states, and not at all related to being a citizen or immigrant. I think they call it “equitive justice” or “progressive prosecution”, either DAs will refuse to charge a POC for a crime due to their race, or judges will waive bail for the same reason.
Where did you read this? Can I find out more details about why you think this is happening, and read for myself the argument that it is happening?
This was something I noticed during BLM riots particularly, and in some blue areas afterwards like in New York (though not as prominently since the riots), there’d be cases of somebody stealing something or hurting someone, caught on video, and the DA would refuse to place charges on the individual. For the life of me I couldn’t figure out why else they would do that.
What you’re saying now is different from what you said before. What you said before was “equitive justice” and “progressive prosecution” where people in the present tense are not prosecuted because of their race. Where does this happen, what are some of the cities? Where can I read more about it? How did you find out about it?
I have more to say on the arrests-during-BLM issue specifically, but that’s different than saying that blue states are using progressive prosecution and refusing to charge a crime because of the race of the person being accused, so I want to focus on the first thing instead of switching if we can.
Now to be fair I think there was some overlap between the BLM riots and me still watching Steven Crowder so maybe some of the stuff I observed at the time wasn’t entirely accurate or correct (I stopped watching him during the Summer Of Love because I noticed he wasn’t as truthful as he claimed to be during his coverage)
Yeah, fair enough. I’ve had that experience of paying attention to something online and believing it, and then later on putting it together that it was bullshit, so I can respect the idea. The whole endeavor of trying to figure out who is actually telling the truth is important and it’s not real easy.
Would you say Biden was supporting genocide in Gaza? I would, just to be clear, I’m just curious what your take on it (and on Israel’s behavior) is.
Do you think Trump is currently supporting genocide in Gaza?
Hm… I just looked over their comment history and I have to say you kind of have a point. I have RCR mentally categorized as a bad-faith engager, but I really don’t see much at all of that after a quick glance over what they’ve actually been doing.
I think there is a big example set in conservative media that the right way to go about things is to spew propaganda, or be “snarky” and refuse to engage with reasonable conversation about politics in favor of just dunking on the opposition. That comes across as “fun,” or as sort of doing battle for “your team” in the marketplace of ideas, and I think people are taken in by the idea of it even if they’re not necessarily bad people or intending to do anything wrong. Looking over RCR’s history I’m going to take back what I said about their intent being to violate the social contract. I think they’re just posting a bunch of conservative stuff. Which, of course, there’s a lot of overlap between that and naked propaganda, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be their fault or their intent if that’s just the media they consume.
@realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club as an olive branch I’m going to ask you about some details of some of the stuff you’ve said recently, under appropriate comment threads. You don’t have to answer my questions of course if you don’t want to. I am just trying to sort out whether you are (1) posting this stuff because you think it’s true (2) posting it because “doing battle for your team” so to speak is the pattern of behavior you see, by fun conservative commentators you’re trying to emulate (3) posting it because you’ve independently decided that you don’t give a shit whether it’s true as long as it “feels” like a win for your side. Those are somewhat different behaviors, as far as how you’re treating the social contract and as far as the Nazi bar analogy people have been talking about here, and so if you want people to treat you and your instance some certain way you might want people to be placing you in the earlier categories instead of the later ones.
Edit: Oh, one of the comments I wanted to respond to is not federated here. My question is:
No this is a thing in blue states, and not at all related to being a citizen or immigrant. I think they call it “equitive justice” or “progressive prosecution”, either DAs will refuse to charge a POC for a crime due to their race, or judges will waive bail for the same reason.
Where did you read this? Can I find out more details about why you think this is happening, and read for myself the argument that it is happening?
The timing is absolutely on purpose.
(Also, FYI your comment is marked as German so a lot of people may not see it.)
I edited the comment, and I honestly think it’s funnier / more impactful without it.
It is rare for something I see on the internet to make me bust out laughing.
Here’s my take on it. I had to deal with this a few times in spaces I control.
I feel you on not wanting to be capricious or ban people you don’t agree with. I actually think that having “enemy” points of view easily accessible for people to talk to or amongst each other is a really good thing. I wish there were more “conservative” voices in the discourse that made some kind of sense for example, although that’s a pretty tough sell at this point because “conservative” has become synonymous with dangerous violence and total dishonesty at this point. But the issue with realcaseyrollins or other people like them isn’t exactly the point of view. The issue is how they approach the social contract with their postings.
I think Lemmy’s incentives and overall structure have led people to this entitled mindset under which they’ve got an absolute right to be part of the social interaction, as long as they don’t violate “the rules” beyond a reasonable doubt with a lot of debate and abundance of due process and benefit of the doubt. As long as they don’t cross certain incredibly loose standards of behavior (or other standards which are bizarrely and pointlessly strict), they’ve got a right to stay forever and interact however they want. I don’t actually think that’s a healthy way to build a community.
For the small number of times that this has come up, I’ve opened a conversation with the person. “Hey, it kind of seems like such-and-such is an issue with what you’re posting. What’s your take on it? How do you respond if someone raised that particular aspect as a problem for the community?”
Every time, the reaction I’ve gotten has been along the lines of “waargbrlgbs fuck fuck you fuck you I’m going to post it anyway argargarbawe you can’t stop me.” I’m sort of paraphrasing obviously. But that’s the vibe. Kind of “I don’t have to justify it, now fuck off and let me post.” At that point, I felt totally comfortable taking action against them. Because it’s not censorship, it’s just… I don’t know, decency. Enforcing normal human interaction. The modern internet with its anonymity and its free accounts for whoever wants one, has entitled people to act with this kind of impunity. Experience has taught them that the social contract doesn’t apply to them. They don’t have to pretend they’re here for a good reason, they don’t have to answer questions or talk like a reasonable person. If they just want to broadcast slop and abuse, they can. I do feel like someone who’s in control of some little part of the space has a responsibility to remove that stuff.
I’m not trying to tell you what to do by any means, you can handle it however you like. Like I say, I really feel you as far as not removing the viewpoint. I just don’t think that the viewpoint is really the issue with a lot of the posters that are problems in my opinion, and I don’t think “the rules” as they are commonly understood on Lemmy are the answer for building a good place.
Edit: Also, you’re definitely at risk of becoming the Nazi bar if you are not already. I took one look at the communities and, as you saw, came to the conclusion “whoa welp okay fuck this place.” Again, not because of the political bent of the content, but because of who was involved and their modes of interactions with other people that I’ve observed. I feel like it would be a lot more healthy to build up some kind of intentional good interactions and communities, however small, than it would be to have it dominated by the people who are having issues with getting banned in other places and just getting clowned on all the time.
I pretty much never hear birdsong now. It’s maybe one or two, off in the distance.
I am clearly just talking nonsense. I actually didn’t know that meatballs were called that in the UK, so I guess it’s perfectly legit. There actually was a big rift in the Scrabble community, decades ago, about using the British official word list versus the American official word list, and apparently they’ve more or less standardized on a combined list that includes all the words on both. So anything in British English is completely fair game, which may to be fair explain why some of the words that aren’t real friendly in the US are still on there.
a government-affiliated think tank predicts a postwar baby boom
I’m sure they fucking do
I would just make it a little more clear which side you’re on. People sometimes come to YPTB because they are being unreasonable. Something like:
Then the sources to prove it, but have the simple explanation first. Sometimes if you indicate the primary sources first without the explanation it takes a little triangulation for someone to figure out what’s actually going on.
And yeah, I don’t even know if this counts as PTB just because of the superseding issue that realcaseyrollins is just here to spew and nothing good can come of interacting with them, mod or not. Like you can’t go in the monkey cage and then be surprised when some poop comes flying at you. I’m actually a little surprised that thelemmy.club is not defederated from more places given the apparent waste-of-time state of the place.
Pretty sure George Washington invented English, it was right about the time he was teaching the Wampanoag about thanksgiving and the Iroquois about federal democracy.
😃
(I am joking don’t get all upset. Here, here’s Al Murray to soothe the English pride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x2ovlPr2IE)
Oh, hello! I didn’t even notice it was you when I was replying. Good to see you found a way to shoehorn “Biden” and “DNC” and “Hillary” into this totally related topic. You did it real smoothly, too, it totally wasn’t some random hard turn into a rant about US politics and your favorite politicians from the US to talk about. Nice.