Lemmy isn’t “too extreme,” a very small subset of Lemmings are just fucking insufferable.
…have these people met certain redditors? 🧐
News: People on the internet find out some people on the internet grinds their gears
Tune in at 6 to hear our top story: “Water, is it really wet?”. Findings from top scientist may surprise you. 🤔
I’m still figuring out if I can just straight up block people from certain servers
Only individually
I think it’s just a symptom of “people”.
I see Roy I upvote
deleted by creator
I mean, tankies are kinda worse.
Edit: seems this post is controversial! Let me clarify.
Tankies are definitely worse. 🥂
Meh, both extremes are as insufferable
There is a lot of political and other “adult” discourse. Not extreme, but more exhausting for a person wanting memes, gifs, and lols. I imagine the median age here is higher than that of Reddit. Can’t confirm, but it certainly conducts itself with less…“juvenility”…or some word.
Based
I actually hope more middle ground right leaning people migrate.
deleted by creator
Maybe not, maybe you’re a problem because you exclude people like that.
deleted by creator
Biden? Biden is middle ground right leaning.
deleted by creator
America moment
Even for the US this is insanely out of touch. But it is kind of sad that one of the main reddit alternatives is even more US-centric than reddit.
Disagree entirely with that. There’s propaganda on all sides and there’s things that we’re all fucked up on. Hate to do the both sides things but I think its realistic that both sides are being driven to extremes and we should fight that and recognize
Imagine being braindead to the point of thinking “people should have as many rights as possible” and “people I dislike should die” are in some way similar. That’s why rightwingers don’t belong in society.
Imagine being a fucking idiot ?
What are some extreme positions on the left and who is the representative pushing for them?
Stalin was a swell guy / lemmygrad
If by left you mean tankies, which are just fascists posing as leftists, then violence against liberals or anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their ccp/russia/nk bs…
deleted by creator
We call this the “Centrist pull” to get people to the right.
It’s like the carnival of flaming demon knife throwers insisting that throwing flaming chainsaws at your family every day is “extremism”, and just throwing knives at them is normal.
…libs?
Lol yea maybe they’re just more libs
I’m gonna say some stuff that most of the people here probably know on some level, but considering this thread, I think it needs to be explicitly said.
Very few of the people who post comments on the internet are highly educated in whatever field they’re making a claim in. Getting challenged by people who know next to nothing and receive all the upvotes anyway is an exhausting experience, so many well-educated people keep their debates private. If they are here, you probably aren’t enough of an expert to recognize them. The simple, easy to understand takes are what get upvoted, and in-depth, nuanced ideas are almost always ignored or ridiculed. Most forums are full of people who know just enough to feel confident in making calls for radical action without any knowledge of how that action could be implemented or would play out.
Look through this comment section. Lots of vague, single-sentence arguments about being “capitalist,” “communist,” or “socialist,” along with “leftist,” “liberal,” or “conservative,” but I don’t see a single one acknowledging that each of those words can individually encompass vast groups of conflicting ideas and have wildly different meanings in different parts of the world; a serious problem considering at least a few of the people posting in this thread aren’t in the US. Very little discussion of substantive ideas like “people should be given a universal basic income of $15 a day,” or “food stamps should be granted without application to anyone under a certain income threshold,” or “social media servers should receive public funding and be administrated by an elected body.” It’s almost never more specific than “universal healthcare,” or “abolish the police,” Those might be the right direction, but when was the last time you saw people discussing things like whether experimental treatments should be covered, or the number and type of professions that should replace the current myriad of roles police are expected to fill? I seriously doubt if you randomly selected two self-described communists (or whatever ideology) on Lemmy and had them start making decisions together, that they would agree with each other on exactly how society should be run even half the time.
I’m not saying these conversations shouldn’t happen, vague as they are. I certainly don’t have the energy to write out long arguments 99% of the time. We all have to make our own way to finding deeper knowledge, and building a knowledge base of buzzwords can be a useful stepping stone. But far too often people stop once they feel they have a sufficient understanding of the buzzwords and then start talking like they know the answers. it’s important to temper the depth of your convictions based on where you’re having the discussion, where you’re getting your knowledge. Are you watching youtube videos and reading unsourced comments, or are you reading research papers from institutions with a history of making accurate claims? Are you reading news articles from ad-supported papers, and if you are, are you checking whether those articles are making sources available for readers check on? Should I have bothered writing several paragraphs under a meme of a glowing red bird, and am I really qualified to tell people to be more careful with their discussions?
I appreciated your wall of text! Lemmy, and social media in general, are pretty terrible places for nuanced discussion. The system is biased towards short and vauge posts. As you said though, they can be a good stepping stone.
There’s been more than one time that I’ve seen people arguing in a thread and decided I’d look up the topic to see who is right. In the end it doesn’t really matter what people in the thread were saying. It got me interested in the topic and I searched out more reputable sources of information and hopefully I learned a bit!
That being said, there are also threads where people post insane takes. You really need to have a litmus test for whether or not a post should even been considered.
Lemmy’s been a lot better than reddit for this in my experience. On reddit you couldn’t even get a sentence out.
Or, at the very least, recognize the level of knowledge you have and partake in the discussion with humility, doubt and caution.
I really enjoyed reading this. Do you have a blog or something? Have a good one.
yes you can find it at /u/BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
Are you really qualified? Who knows, but you make a really good point
To be taken seriously offline I necessarily have to make well reasoned and researched arguments.
Lemmy is where I come to blow off steam and just berate my ideological opponents because they genuinely are losers.
It is not a place for nuanced debate.
It is not a place for nuanced debate.
Why not? Compared to other social media it’s way better equipped for reasoned debate, with an easy-to-read layout designed for mountains of text and ease of linking sources. Maybe c/memes isn’t the right place but considering how serious the rest of this thread is I’m pretty sure my spiel was worth it.
Maybe the people in my social circle are just a lower caliber than yours, but I can’t remember the last time I got asked to source an opinion irl. Most of my friends already agree with me. Hell, offline, most people aren’t willing to discuss politics at all. Even saying you have opinions on politics is basically a faux pas…
It’s not a place for nuanced debate because I have no idea who I’m talking to.
I’d rather devote my time to having those nuanced conversations in real life (which I do) than trying to convince an American online through a meme community that gun bans would reduce school shootings for example.
If you actually have a group of peers that consistently challenge each other and have scholarly debate, congrats. You’re in a very small minority. You personally not having a use for arguing online doesn’t mean it’s useless. I know plenty of Americans who have been convinced that gun control is important by things they’ve seen online.
Very few people in this thread are kidding around. It’s worth pointing out that most of the things they are saying are extremely shallow.
Why should you only have discussions with people you know?
If you only have these discussions with people you know, more than likely, they are in your ideological bubble. You are just creating your own echo chamber. We may be randos on the internet, but we could be next to you on the subway or your cubicle. Most of us here probably like to debate somewhat.
I never said I only have discussions with people I know.
I actively have political conversations in real life on actual policy issues with a broad range of people.
Have you never campaigned before?
Unless you’re a lib in the workplace then you can say whatever bullshit hot takes you want, since everyone will agree with you anyway.
The word “lib” is so vague now, that it has lost meaning.
Some people use it with the original meaning, but most just call anyone who isn’t right wing a lib.
Buzzwords, as the original commenter said.
Same for “right wing” and “fascist” and every other piece of shit insult ya’ll use in daily discourse.
Ok
That’s not healthy.
I wouldn’t say it’s leftist, though there’s a lot of leftists here. Lemmy is more like how internet discussion boards used to be. There’s a lot of people with weird opinions on things, and there’s no Reddit Karma pushing people to conform to the consensus. So people are going to have weird takes on things, and there’s not 1000 comments upvoted above the weird ones, so you’re going to see comments like that. So reply to with you your weird opinions on those weird comments.
Welcome to the version internet that’s not pre-packaged and filtered to be bland!
Right? I’m just relieved, I can be myself here… I’ve said so many things here that would have gotten insta-ban on Reddit
Exactly. It’s not “Leftist”, it’s just NOT fully of Nazis, and that’s how far our standards have slipped.
Why does everything need to be politicized? No one gives a flying fuck if you’re a leftist, unless you’re a Leftist and no one gives a fuck if you’re a right winger unless you’re a right winger. Jesus christ the US Politics are absolute fucking cancer.
It’s considered ‘left’ to support queer and trans rights, and there are a good number of people that seem to have a problem with that whether my queer self is political or not.
Guaranteeing that every individual has the same rights independently of their sex, sexual orientation, race, skin color and so on… Shouldn’t be neither left nor right. It just should be. It’s just common sense.
There are plenty of another topic for the left vs right to debate. Leave identity politics out of it and just let people live like they want.
Pretending it isn’t doesn’t make it isn’t, unfortunately.
But like if people keep intentionally misgendering someone, trans people aren’t gonna wanna be in that environment. Those people will feel more safe here than reddit
“Leave identity politics out of it” you do realize the modern Democrat party revolves around playing victim and identity politics? They’re not going to let it go now. Need more victims.
The Republican Party also plays identity politics, especially white and Christian identity politics. A lot of Christians base their identity around the idea of needing to feel persecuted.
Or the need to hate someone or something. The irony of modern day Jesus worship.
I wouldn’t consider that a left-right issue. China’s government would certainly be classed as leftist, but they engage in LGBTQ oppression. It’s been getting better in some ways recently, but they’re no friends to LGBTQ people.
I usually put such issues somewhere along the line of socially liberal/progressive to social conservative.
Right wing violence will come whether you want to believe it’s political or not.
Yet I see a lot more anti liberal rhetoric on here. Also these people getting off on wanting a civil war… because destabilizing a country always worked great.
People are angry, and rightfully so. The opportunities in chaos are often seen as preferable to oppressive order.
Irony: living in a country that has destabilized more countries than any in history and fucking those countries for generations. Meanwhile wanting destabilization at home. Lol.
Why does everything need to be politicized?
Because everything is political or adjacent to it. Everything in this world is either impacted by or is a reflection of politics.
I mention this to my friends all the time. So many issues we’re dealing with derives from politics, so of course discourse will always return to it.
Money Rent/housing costs Grocery costs Stagnant wages Retirement
School shootings Police brutality Systemic racism
Medicine Insurance R/d for treatments Quality of life
Etc. Etc.
My issue is that I’m trying to implement a new app in my home server. How is this political?
I find posts like this so confusing. Does politics, i.e.the policies organisations across the world implement to actively change the way the masses live not directly or indirectly affect your life? Whenever someone says something like this I just assume you’re not within a marginalised group because there’s no way you’d make an enlightened centrist post like this otherwise.
The masses inability to not think in binary is the cancer.
This is the only answer
Most people (especially in the US) can’t even define what they are IN FAVOR of politically. All they do is denigrate what they think they don’t like, even when it is against their own best interest. Bunch of fucking lemmings we humans are, just waiting to be taken advantage of by the sharks.
Cancer post, glad people are calling it out. Some of you need to get off the internet a bit more.
Please lead by example
Lemmy isnt leftist. The group calling itself leftist the most here is at the same time cheering on ultranationalist governments who are in the middle of genocides.
This is a .ml instance. Of course it’s going to have pro-authoritian, genocide denying bias.
deleted by creator
Domains are regularly chosen because they can form a word or they can be related to the domain name or used as an alternative abriviation.
Everyone knows .ml is malis tld but they also know that it’s usage in the context to lemmy is that it always means marxist-leninist.
Just saying.
Removed by mod
Thats still leftist, unless you’re somehow more left than straight up communism
China and russia arent communist. They are capitalist societies with strong protectionism and a huge imbalance between classes. The government owns all companies but the people don’t have any say over the government so it cannot be argued that the means of production are in the hands of the people.
deleted by creator
Platforms have no political alignment, users have
You cannot tell me TruthSocial has no political alignment.
I don’t agree. The simple fact that Lemmy is decentralised is a political thing. It’s about who has power over the platform, and that is inherently a political issue. The status-quo of other platforms, that being under the control of a corporation, is also a political stance.
PS: everything is politics, that’s not a good or bad thing, it’s neutral. If you don’t think of something as political, that just means it’s oriented towards the status-quo you are used to.
Did the platform just blink into existence or was it created and advanced by someone’s hand? To what end?
Also why would you want to be in an echo chamber? I’m more of a libertarian but I like surrounding myself with people that challenge my views.
You’re not a libertarian you’re a conservative who’s afraid to admit so.
Do you think that’s of all the issues in politics, it’s only valid to have the same 2 political views as everyone else? Or can people have wide ranging views on many topics?
Giving full economic power to the state does not make you less fascist. It actually makes it much worse.
Just a reminder to the true leftists who think they can force through their better society by giving society more power over the individual without changing the culture in the first place.
Socialist policies are the obvious answer to health, education, justice and transport issues in society.
You know, all the things that actually matter in a society.
The reason we don’t have more of them is because people continually vote against their own self interest.
Certain strands of Socialism has evolved away from a completely centralised economy in the same way capitalism isn’t actually a free market.
The reason we don’t have more of them is because people continually vote against their own self interest.
Louder for those in the back!!!
I will never understand WHY people do this. And then higher life expectancy resulting in a growing older generation population preferring policies that actively harm young people
Socialist policies are the obvious answer to health, education, justice and transport issues in society.
Sure, as long everything is implemented as insurances and not government services.
People with the need should be in control of how to satisfy that need, because politicians and bureaucrats DO NOT know better. Always remember, someone should come up losing something whenever a need is not met.
The politicians and bureaucrats don’t know better, which is why people tell them what paths we should take as a society. Then when organizations are funded by public dollars they hire experts in the relevant fields. If the public were to take over healthcare for example, experts in healthcare policy would be hired to consult on how to overhaul the medical industry.
Why not both? That seems to be working in most European countries.
Ok, but only if and when you can trust your politicians. So… no.
For context: OP is on lemmy.world which blocks the tankie instances if I’m not mistaken. So they seem to refer to based leftist stuff I assume and isn’t a redfash.
The true marxist based left is not woke. It never was. There’s a reason that the western left turned liberal in the 50s and 60s and focused on reform. The CCP killed any thought that decentralized communes could be self-sufficient and centralization killed any concept of liberalism and a responsive command economy. If the majority can vote their way into resources, minorities suffer. With no opposition checking the ruling party, corruption sets in.
If you are referring to the American Democratic party, they are liberal and not left.
This is correct. They draw a distinction between economic left and social left. Mainly, US liberals are vaguely socialist and definitely not communist, but mainly, they embrace ID politics. People who call themselves leftists may hold the same opinions about equality, but consider the economic system and classes much more important.
Most statements I don’t have qualms with, but from my understanding, “liberals embrace ID politics” seems way off. I could see an argument that there’s some kind of split across people who’d identify as or match a typical understanding of a liberal, along the ID politics line, given that it’s so divisive. Id say liberal as a concept existed way before ID politics, do when that became prominent, a lot of people got split along that line. I.e. Far right probably split 90:10, Conservatives probably split 75:25, Liberals probably split closer to 50:50, while social left split 25:75, far left split 10:90 and libertarians split 1:99.
There is a tradition of leftist critics of Marxism. I don’t agree with each 100% but you can draw a line from Bakunin to Kropotkin to Goldman to Weil to Orwell, … each in opposition of Marx or Lenin or Stalin
Just a reminder, abolishing the state is cool.
I am sure that will protect minorities! That’s definitely never resulted in genocide. It’ll be fine this time around.
I’ve tried explaining to so many different people that giving ultimate power to a group of people that were raised in an environment that thinks “greed is good” is fucking dumb.
Maybe I just don’t explain myself very well.
And yet thats the system we live in, giving a handful of boomer politicians the reigns while we beg for rights and basic amenities to live.
I think the point is that giving them full economic power would not make the situation better and once the politicians are solved, we wouldn’t need the economic change anyways.
When did a stateless society commit genocide?
Bosnia, Rwanda, and multiple acts carried out by the Janjaweed to name some of the more recent ones. Most of the other more recent ones were perpetrated by states against stateless peoples which also shouldn’t speak too kindly to your narrative.
Most of the other more recent ones were perpetrated by states against stateless peoples which also shouldn’t speak too kindly to your narrative.
Well, it speaks to my narrative that states are evil.
Bosnia, Rwanda
Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t these nationalist movements on their way to build a state? Not the kind of stateless society Kropotkin imagined
Yes, they were trying to build a state. Building systems is a natural progression within human nature. You can try to decentralize it all you want but it just enables optimism. Anything that counts that would require centralized education, aka requiring a state to function and enforce.
When I’m talking about states, I’m especially referring to nation states, hence my focus on nationalists. Sure, you can use a very broad definition, but than “state” barely means anything.
Centralization is a core aspect of states, true. I don’t see how “centralized education” is so inevitable for you? Why not a decentralized education system that focuses more on voluntariness and empowering that on enforcement?
Last but not least: Building systems in not the same as sates building. And human nature isn’t as straight forward as it seems to be. You haven’t seen any other system in your life I assume, and neither have I. So it’s easy to think that’s just how it is. The great David Graeber once said in an interview that anthropologists have an affinity to anarchism since they know it works.
How does a stateless society protect anyone?
Today, the whole world is divided into states but state abolismists want concepts like transformative justice that tries to undo the root of a problem, not just the symptoms.
Also: stateless doesn’t mean no order at all, but it’s about hierarchy free systems
Good luck keeping order without an entity for keeping order.
There is an entity for keeping order. Its called a community. Everyone protects everyone because everyone knows everyone because everyone needs everyone. If you step out of line people won’t protect you.
Stateless societies existed for millennia before all the states came along and enslaved them. They had order because strong personal relationships maintain order without leaders.
Ah yes unlike the lack of genocide from authoritarian states!
Local people need to be empowered, not politicians.
Decentralization in true left states results in starvation every single time. Centralization results in oppression. The USSR and the CCP went through each of these phases but almost every smaller example does too. The negative relations between the USSR and the CCP even started out as a disagreement around the USSR not following true decentralization until the starvation started.
I don’t know what to tell you other than the fact that it has been tried. It is not a matter of states failing to follow Karl Marx’ best guidance around decentralization. It fails that quickly.
The endless purity tests of what a true leftist is one of the main reasons they make no real change in the world.
The constant fighting over doctrinal purity consumes so much time, energy and mind space there is nothing left for actual change.
Laughable you’d level this as a criticism of the left considering MAGA republicans are waging all out war for control of the conservative party in America against more traditional republicans.
Why is it laughable? It seems pretty obvious that one of the main reasons why conservatives are still successful in the US is that they’re able to unite much more than the left. I’m too lazy to go find sources, but there are multiple sociological studies that confirmed this - despite craziness like Trump and before that Tea party and other shit, the left has been considerably more fragmented the whole time.
If it were true that leftists could never organise to decide a course of action how do you explain the rampant success of workers unions?
I don’t doubt that conservatives are more likely to just ‘follow the leader’ (I’ve read similar as well) but to say the left is ineffectual because of internal divisions is laughable given the very public and concerning division in the Republican Party right now.
how do you explain the rampant success of workers unions?
Excuse me? The what?
You know that weekends didn’t exist until unions fought for and won them yeah?
And when was this, exactly?
Neither of the two parties in the United States of America are actually left. Republicans are far right, Democrats are liberal and in the middle of the left/right spectrum.
The right might begin to become divided soon, but so far it definitely has not. Regarding worker unions (and the research I mentioned), I’m talking about the modern day, last 20-30 years or so, even though there’s been a lot of fragmentation historically as well. There are no real leftist parties in my country with any success either because of the same thing, endless fragmentation, purity tests and ignoring the fact that actual workers are not socially progressive.
deleted by creator
That’s not what fascist means. Fascism is specific a right wing ideology, because it involves close cooperation between the government and capitalist monopolies. Mussolini praised “capitalist production, captains of industries, modern entrepreneurs”. You seem to mean authoritarian.
deleted by creator
I understand the definition of fascism. You are missing the portion by which corporations are not allowed to exist if they do not further the efforts of the state. Basically exactly the same as Marx advised towards the end of his writings. Nothing is allowed to exist in a socialist system if it is perceived to work against the needs of the people (state)
There is functionally no difference between corporations that do not control the means of production even if they are charged with running it and a state fully owning the means. It’s just middle management.
A socialist system doesn’t have to be state-based. Socialism can encompass anarchism, anarcho-communism and many other left ideologies besides state-communism.
Just like the Soviets and CCP attempted to do before they learned how poor decentralized planning was without incentives. The CCP literally complained about how the Soviet Union wasn’t following the true path of decentralized communes as their people starved. This is literally history. You can argue all you want about how what the Soviet Union and CCP became wasn’t true anarchism but they literally tried it initially and it failed miserably.
Even Karl Marx said that his intent was more of a direction than blueprints because he didn’t have it all figured out. He also said that allowing opposition parties couldn’t be allowed within any socialist system which cements the concentration of power and eventually consultation.
All this is why the Western left turned to liberal reform approaches in the 50s.
Okay, but that doesn’t make a leftist system fascist. That’s what authoritarian means in an economic sense. There are many other aspects of fascism.
If there is functionally no difference between the systems, it it’s fascism. Call a duck a duck. Oppressed people don’t care that the flag is red.
Fascism includes various types of oppression not present in other ideologies, such as sexism and manipulation/fear about minority groups as ‘the enemy’.
That is a result of the perception that those groups work against the state, not a requirement for fascism. Communist systems have just as bad if not worse a track record in regards to minority oppression as fascist ones.
It’s unfortunate as theoretically, communism is uniformly egalitarian while fascism is not.
It’s as if the people who talk about it the most don’t actually have the foggiest idea what a “ruling class” actually is or how it comes to be.
Everyone thinks they will be the ones in charge after the revolution.
What a moron.
You’ve been so scared of this communism boogeyman that you’ve allowed yourself to be convinced anything that supports your commu(nity) is bad and oppressive. Meanwhile you have absolutely no means of building yourself out of any issue that may arise further down the line.
"Derrrrr I’m so glad we don’t have any oppressive Healthcare system built that can be controlled by them demon-crats! "
-guy who pays more taxes to their Healthcare system than almost any other country and receives NO benefits from it.
Government provided healthcare is not inherently communist or socialist. I’m not the moron here. You aren’t even talking on close to the same level. Also, the American Democratic party is not left. Not even close.
It’s way more privacy-oriented, but a lot of Reddit communities were already very left wing
I can appreciate that aspect of lemmy, very technical users talking about very technical approaches to left-leaning codes of ethics, such as FOSS, privacy, self-hosting, etc. In this regard, Lemmy definitely is better than reddit and I’m learning a lot about it all in here, and am beginning to apply the things I’ve learned in my own life and computer systems.
As for actually being more left leaning? Nah son, it’s the same ideas as reddit but with a sense of hatred for “reddit libruls” for not being true scotsmen. There are right leaning communities on both platforms, there for sure are more tankies over here, but almost every single moral stance found on reddit can be found here. Literally the only thing missing on reddit is such a Tech-oriented user base (which if we’re honest, you could also find on reddit but it surfaces a lot more on lemmy in general) and the russia apologists.
Maybe people over here should stop playing the no true scotsman game and actually open up their doors and take it easy on the gatekeeping. And by “here” I mostly mean the tankie instances, holding their “holier than thou” stances n shit. Chill the fuck out, act like a true left leaner and work together with the people you’re gatekeeping, get the movement going somewhere instead of armchair criticizing people for not being left-leaning enough.
True. Reddit was pretty center-right oriented. Lemmy leans more left and I do enjoy seeing the Trumpers here getting dunked on pretty frequently.
Reddit was pretty center-right oriented.
lmao
Do you doubt that? What is your idea of the left? What is seen as ‘left’ or even what conservatives call ‘the radical left’ in the US would likely be seen as center or center-right globally.
What is seen as ‘left’ or even what conservatives call ‘the radical left’ in the US would likely be seen as center or center-right globally*.
*in most of the western world and pretty much nowhere else.
deleted by creator
Go on then, how would you describe it overall?
I haven’t seen any of that but I’ve seen a shit ton of owning the libs bullshit.
And when you did find Leftists they were just bootlicking tankies.
Dunked on? The fuck kind of idiocracy bullshit is that?
Having hate in your heart hurts you a lot more than other people.
I don’t have hate, I’m just sick of seeing what should be seen as a discussion (even if one side is ridiculous/borderline fascist) get debased further by the side with the moral/logical advantage calling basic reasoning and conversation “dunking” on the other side. It’s pathetic. You can do better than to look at political discussions as opportunities for someone to get dunked on. If you can’t, then I’ll just keep dunking on u bruh.
Have you seen those colorful people on hexbear? Quite the echo chamber.
At least they are honest about it.
Yes I have.
I just saw a post about eco-terrorism and people mostly agreed. Lemmy is 100% extreme.
I was downvoted because I said that barbie is not feminism, a statement which is bare minimum of center left feminist ideology.
Lemmy is definitely not all leftist.
It might be seen leftist by US standard, but overall, with the exception of few well known instances, it is not really “extreme left”, probably not even overwhelming left
I would bet any amount of money that at least 50% of lemmy posts are shitting on capitalism. Couple that with the fact that people tolerate some amount of tankie’ism, I’d say lemmy is extreme.
Let me ask you this, if you had a website with a community that relentlessly mocks communism and/or socialism, and lets some nazi posts rise to the top, what would you call that website?
I don’t know anything about Barbie so I can’t say anything about that. But I know that not all of lemmy is extreme, of course there’s gonna be some normal everyday content.
Let me ask you this, if you had a website with a community that relentlessly mocks communism and/or socialism, and lets some nazi posts rise to the top, what would you call that website?
Reddit?
When did any post that had Nazi propaganda get to the front page?
And I don’t know what are you talking about with the mocking socialism in Reddit. They even have the LateStageCapitalism sub, which is pretty popular.
Mocking capitalism is not extremism in most of the world. Even the pope shits regularly on current capitalism.
Left and anti-capitalism are 2 different things. And most people in Lemmy are blandly criticizing current turbo capitalism, which is left, center, right… Not everyone who oppose capitalism, particularly in our current form, is extreme left. And most of the posts I see here are not really anti-anticapitalism, mainly pro regulated capitalism (unions and regulations), which in Europe for instance are center left position.
What you guys call tankies are indeed extremes.
There’s plenty of Nazi and alt-right social media or even Lemmy instances you can go to if you want to avoid leftists. But one or two leftist instances pop up and suddenly the world’s ending. Maybe this is a good way to discover which side of the left-right spectrum you favor?
Personally, I’d rather err on the side of leftism. At least their goals are noble.
I think you are replying to the wrong comment
I can’t say I have definitive data on that but when I look at the front page which includes everything that is federated by lemm.ee, I see tankie posts often and people are mostly in agreement. Something like this I would call tankie, and I see one of those everyday, maybe every two days.
I’m not saying that anti capitalist things are extreme on their own. But when it’s mixed with the tolerance of overtly extreme memes makes you extreme. I’ll ask again, what if it was the case for a right wing ideology? What if that meme said something like “But Zoe, the Jews are taking all the wealth and will not stop voluntarily.” Would the existence of that hypothetical meme not make that community extremist? If it was just that meme on its own then fuck it, it’s just edgy shock value stuff. But when the community is always slanting on one side, the meme has a more serious connotation.
Tankie doesn’t mean anything
Spotted the American 🔍
Try again
It’s not terrorism if you’re trying to save the planet from those trying to destroy it.
It is terrorism if you do violent acts to push your political goals https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
Saving humanity from climate collapse is not political
"Saving humanity from the sins of the west and their ideological indoctrination is also not political. "
- Osama Bin Laden (probably)
Just call it what it is then say it’s justified if you think it is. If you can dress this up as not terrorism then nothing is.
One is literally happening outside as we speak, one is based upon an extremist interpretation of a 2000 year old book. Can you spot the difference?
The existence of God is unfalsifiable, so you can’t say it’s untrue to the believer. Just make the rules and play by them. Also it’s more like 1500 years ago 🤓.
The idea of climate change and it’s causes IS falsifiable though, which is why taking actions related to that cause is a bit different than something that has no way to be proven.
🤷 Guess we’ll just have to let oil companies keep killing us all.
Lol hubris incarnate.
I mean its also not possible to save humanity from fossil fuel induced runaway climate catastrophe, I just applaud anyone willing to take extreme measures in that pursuit. No hubris whatsoever lol
Violence is a key word in that definition.
Violence: Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.
So, starving a group of people isn’t terrorism because you’re not exerting physical force.
Not easily stopping a fire when you know it’s going to spread towards an occupied house isn’t violence because you’re not exerting physical force.
Poisoning drinking water isn’t violence because you’re not exerting physical force.
Real question: what do you call those things? It can’t be defined as terrorism. What is it?
Kinda missed the point here. The other guy was saying that eco terrorism is not terrorism. I said nothing about if starving people is violence or not.
I don’t think “physical force” is a necesarry component of violence. Take, for example, domestic violence. The US DOJ gives these criteria for if an action is DV or not:
Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, psychological, or technological actions or threats of actions or other patterns of coercive behavior that influence another person within an intimate partner relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
I think a more apt definition of violence would be “coercive behavior”
Coercive behavior doesn’t quite work though.
Yours is better than either of the ones posted, but I do think the physical force aspect is important to differentiate from other aspects.I was going to attempt to make a point about how stopping terrorism that isn’t explicitly violent with violence isn’t the same thing.
Starving a population isn’t violence, but it is terrorism. Attempting to give that population food and being stopped by the state by legal means is terrorism.
The state is going to define things in specific ways to ensure that they’re considered correct.
I had written out a response to the person I replied to and then didn’t post after reading some of their other comments. They’re probably just a troll, or one of those people that’s legitimately kind of smart but hasn’t been around people that are incredibly smart, so hasn’t had a reason to adjust their opinions about things because they might be shallowly correct but are fundamentally wrong. Like Newton’s laws.
It’s not terrorism if you’re helping Allah slay the evil nonbelievers who are destroying the Earth!
Only difference is that Allah isn’t going to wipe us out with Century storms every other week and forest fires the size of countries.
Have you not heard the terms eco-terrorism or eco-facsism? Anyone can use environmentalism to justify their philosophy, don’t be so naive that anything pro-environment is a good thing.
From your link on eco-terrorism:
Eco-terrorism is an act of violence which is committed in support of environmental causes, against people or property.[1][2]
Not sure that I count violence against property as valid. If destruction of material values are classified as violence and eco-terrorism, are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?
are then not oil companies and other capitalists destroying the environment eco-terrorists too?
Objectively, no they are not by the definition you quoted. The definition stated the violence is for the environment; those people execute violence for capital against the environment. I’m sure there’s another definition that would cover those people and the whole they cause, but this one ain’t it.
I agree that they are missing a crucial motive for their actions, namely the cause of doing it for the environment. I still think my critique of the definition’s statement of “violence against property” is valid. It seems to be included in the definition because they want to brand certain acts as terrorism, even though destruction of property is a label they could themselves hold as much as their opponents.
I think that is also why some so called eco-terrorists feel themselves justified in acting out “violence against property”, since they may see it as an act of self defence against the originial portrayers of said “violence”. Ultimately however, I think a distinction should be made between physical violence and destruction of material values. Whether the material value is an entity’s legal property or not should also not matter in this case, in my opinion.
Is it terrorism in the law tho? Obviously keeping in mind who writes it and whose point of view is codified. That conversation may be more nuanced than you think. Especially if all other things we can call terrorism are considered.
I agree and I understand. However, we are talking about the collapse of humanity, the environment, most species, etc for the next 10 million years. So at this point, who are the real eco terrorists?
It’s a problem of perceiving terror as something having a negative connotation by itself. It is a tool. Like a gun, or a knife. And having a moral high ground (like there, or in many more controversial cases) doesn’t erase the fact it is perceived as or is an act of terror.
Guerilla warfare against occupational forces is terrorism. Political assasinations of opressors are too. Taking kneecaps of an oil baron who levels forests and poisons nature is it as well.
And, you name it, there are even more ways of terrorism you’d see as dumb, senseless, inhumane. Take wrapping a civilian child in explosives to blow up a guarded checkpoint. It’s fucked up, right? And it’s not the act of terror itself that makes you puke at a thought of it, but this tool used for insane reasons and how fucking far they took it. If it was a croatian jew taking nazis with themselfes, it would be portrayed as a heroic self-sacrificing act. As a bystander, you see these extreme acts of violence through your lenses and judge reasoning behind it first. That’s why eco-terrorism doesn’t ring any bells. It’s an attack that is rationally justified to you, usually pretty victimless. And it’s relativism at it’s extremes.
At some point you see you can’t escape but thinking of terrorist tactics to achieve that one goal, because nothing else seems as effective. It is muddy waters. It needs slow and thoughtful consideration. If it means saving natives’ land, would you consider torching building equipment, an office or shooting a corporate shithead in their face? You probably can. But would you? And would it be better than whatever comes to mind when you hear the T-word? Would you take all responsibility and all the consequences of what you did on yourself? Wouldn’t you regret it?
On Lemmy we can speak like we are all super based, and there are just causes. Talk is cheap. What matters is if you even feel yourself applauding such acts, you need to be double sure you aren’t a dumbass hypocrite and you really know what are you after. Not mirroring ‘they are killing my world, so they are to be killed’, yada-yada, because kids upvote that shit like crazy, but really meaning it if you say so, being responsible about it.
I feel like I’d end up on some lists for speaking that out loud lmao, but a lot of historical figures we adore are terrorists. Gaining independence of USA was that to brits, Robin Hood myths were that to crown, revolutionaires weren’t shy from actually calling their actions a targeted terrorism against the state. By learning about good and bad terrorism, you can see where you yourself put it and how you relate to it. Usually, as I said, it ends up in deciding if the goal justifies the means, in a dissociated machiavellian way of thinking. Usually. But you are to form your own framework to handle it, obv.
It’s just, I mumble, why eco-terrorism isn’t terrorism because it’s somehow just? And why it can’t be called a justified terrorism instead? What’s the point of whitewashing it besides wining a public support, likely lying about what it really is? Does it change anything but media coverage? Why would it matter in the end?
I would posit the problem is more so “Is having a livable habitat for the earth’s inhabitants political?”
Everything is political as it seems, even mere existence of our trans fellas, because it’s either needs to be changed via politics or can get weaponized by bad faith actors as a populist take. Survival is sometimes political. And as an old soviet saying goes, if you aren’t that interested in politics, politics may become interested in you.
As resource extractors use politics as a vehicle to lobby their interests, fucking with them is indeed political, even if it’s a universally accepted cause like a survival of humankind.
Either way, we’re fucked, so not like it matters lol.
Nerevar, your observation is like a grand and intoxicating maze of perceptions and opinions. While it may seem that Lemmy, like the realm of politics, has its own ideological leanings, one must remember that diversity exists even among the Dunmer, let alone different races. The notion that Lemmy is entirely left-leaning may not be entirely accurate, for the online world, like the vast expanses of Morrowind, is filled with varying perspectives. It is unwise to make sweeping generalizations about the platform’s userbase, just as it is unwise to judge an entire race, like Argonians, based on the actions of a few. Let us remember the complexity of the digital realm and the mortal world alike.
Y-elllow, B-B-Blue?
truestl leaking?
What a fool you are. I have moral superiority. How can you win an argument against that? What a grand and intoxicating innocence. How could you be so naive? There is no escape. No Recall or Intervention can work against me. Come. Lay down your opinions. It is not too late for my mercy.
Any new people here dont listen to this one, it stenches of hard cope.
We have a lot of bassed people and not based people, people that take critisism and people that dont, we have tankies and actual communists, we have american leftists and non american leftists, we have centrists and people that hate centrists, we have people that whant to get to the truth of things and people that just whants to circlejerk. And you have idiots like me that are masochistic by hitting the wasps nest and get stung a fuck ton of times but still come back fore more and we have the people that are the wasps.
Pick wathever you like and have fun, but not like this guy is doing, this is the oposite of fun, just check out the downvotes im gonna get.
I can do worse than downvote you.
I’m going to remove all the labels off your canned goods so you don’t know what you’re opening till you do.
My extreme politics:
Eat it, chumps!
