Here it comes.

Now that the whole world thinks we’re malicious morons, instead of being in the “like them or hate them at least they get shit done / have money” category, there’s going to be a lot of this “Lmao get fucked” behavior coming our way.

https://www.oglaf.com/slodging/

NSFW

I feel like this is phones, not AI.

I really want to know how old these kids were.

It’s fucked up any way you slice it, but it becomes different flavors of fucked up if we’re talking 17-year-olds versus 12-year-olds versus 6-year-olds. I looked it up, and the school serves kids from 4 to 18 years of age so no help there.

Sweet! Yes very occasionally and completely by accident it does happen.

Oh, yeah, like I say I very much agree with you about making an argument and then not backing it up being bullshit. I actually would really like if that was an across-the-board rule that drew mod action when people violated it. It’s way too accepted on Lemmy to just spout off whatever’s in your head and then wander away or get offended if someone asks you to back it up. I’m just saying that deciding that rule as a one-off and applying it to a person on the opposite side of an active argument you and NSXRN are in (whether or not your comments were close enough to this person’s comments to be “in that thread” is, to me, not relevant) is pretty authoritarian of you.

I don’t get the analogy.

Oh, I think you do.

Who are the firefighters supposed to represent?

You proceeded to tell an alternate analogy with the people they were supposed to represent instead moved to someone else in the analogy…

The comment that started this accusation said:

That’s nice. I was responding to a very particular exchange, different from the one you picked out to look at, which said:

There was a specific crowd pretending only democrats could have responsibility for it and that Trump could not be worse

you’re making that up.

Nobody is making up the crowd that pretended only Democrats could have responsibility for it and that Trump could not be worse. Some of them are still around, (and still! saying the same thing for some fucked-up reason, as per my examples) some are gone. I gave some examples of that crowd.

I don’t really feel like a protracted exchange where you move goalposts around and introduce totally random qualifications like “in order to exert electoral pressure on the Democrats” when in fact the lack of that is a big part of why I object strongly to the whole operation. Where, something like the “uncommitted” movement is at least organized in a fashion where it seems like it could produce an improvement, by putting pressure on the Democrats, so that sounds fine. Just not voting for Democrats and hoping they’ll figure it out and move to the left seems pretty much guaranteed to give us something along the lines of the catastrophe that happened. Which is why I am opposed to it.

Anyway feel free to tell the people in Gaza or immigrants in the US or any international student or Ukrainian or and so on about your theory and how pleased you are, now that it’s succeeded, and aren’t they proud of you.

“I hate that this building’s on fire, therefore I am fistfighting the firefighters. After all, they’re not doing a good enough job.” (Which, yes, I agree with you 100% that they are not.)

“Bro why are you bringing up fire extinguishers? I haven’t said anything about them, no. Why would that be important?”

1. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask; I agree with the person you’re talking with, factually, but I have no idea why they are treating it as unreasonable to say “what is the evidence for this thing you are claiming.” They seem to be taking the “do your own research” approach with it, which is bullshit.
2. I think moderating a heated conversation you are a part of is also bullshit. You can’t be arguing with someone, tell them to do something in the argument, and then say “failure to follow mod direction” or whatever when they don’t. Or, you can, but it’s bullshit.
3. I for myself am happy to provide the examples you’re asking for, because it happened all the time. Below:

• https://ponder.cat/comment/2719790 - “The genocide was just as bad under Democrats, you were just a genocide denier when it was your team doing it. In that sense, it’s better that Trump won, because at least liberals acknowledge what’s happening when he does it, rather than downplaying and denying it.”
• https://ponder.cat/comment/2695840 - “[Trump] did get the ceasefire done that Joe Biden claimed to have been working on for years. Donald Trump claims to not give a shit about the Palestinians yet got the ceasefire done. Joe “Proud Zionist” Biden claims to care about the plight of the Palestinians yet did less to end their suffering. The point is that Democratic lip service is often worse or equivalent to the Republicans’ more honest cruelty, especially in foreign policy”
• https://ponder.cat/post/2203126/2508582 - “Voting for Democrats would not have lead to fewer Gazan lives lost, because the Democrats don’t give a fuck about Gazan lives. Biden was already giving them all the weapons they needed, and Harris made no indication she was going to change course. Harris would have enabled the genocide same as Trump.”

That’s with a simple text search; I found 503 results and picked those comments out of the first 21 of them. There were quite a lot. Some from pretty high-profile people, it wasn’t all just random idiots. But yes it was an extremely common point of view.

Holding your nose and voting for the least worst candidate only serves to prop up the two party system in perpetuity, and ensures your views will never be represented in the future.

Yeah, I feel super well-represented now in this healthy democracy now that people can be sent to El Salvador if they have the temerity to protest for Palestine. I’m super glad that a lot of people who feel like you do managed to unprop-up the two party system, and now we have in government basically only one party, and I can’t wait to see what’s next. Boy howdy.

They’re the person you’re speaking to, when you asked “Has no one told you how voting works” et cetera.

I hope you enjoy my lengthy responses, I tried to summarize it from my reading and for what it’s worth I tried to approach it as impartially as I could given the circumstances.

Yeah, I’m completely fine with a serious discussion about it, because you seem like you’re capable of a serious discussion. So, right from the jump, the first comment they made:

That immediately to me is super offensive. Probably more so than pig shit pictures, definitely more so than me being condescending to them. Why? Because it is deliberate lies in service of killing. I still dealt with it factually, and I indicated I’d be open to a factual exchange. You want me to be nice about it also? Why would I do that? That doesn’t seem like it’s necessary.

I have no idea if that person actually thinks that Putin will honor a cease-fire, whether randomly unilaterally announced or not. It is clear to me that he will not. Actually, you seemed to acknowledge that they know he won’t (saying that all of these cease-fires tend to fall apart and not be honored). There are plenty of cease-fires that get honored, definitely plenty that aren’t broken on a huge scale right away on purpose.

Bottom line: I’ve known people from Ukraine. I’ve talked with them about their country getting torn apart, people they know getting killed, with an endless stream of lies coming from the other side about the reasons why and the things they can do to stop it from happening. I just don’t have patience for it. My whole SA analogy is in absolutely no way frivolous. I think it’s an absolutely spot-on way of expressing the horror of Russia claiming they’re only blowing up apartment buildings and hospitals because someone might be trying to resist them or give a security guarantee, and they didn’t like that, so they have every right to keep killing until they feel like stopping. And, someone on Lemmy saying the answer to that all is to stop arming Ukraine so they can’t fight back anymore. I think it’s disgusting, and I don’t think I’m required to be nice when explaining why.

I don’t think anyone on Hexbear has any right to request that someone not be “overly antagonistic” when they speak to them. For obvious reasons. The whole framing reeks of privilege and dishonesty, of creating rules for other people without any pretense that you’re planning to follow them yourself.

I do think that some of the Hexbear people are just confused and going along with the herd in terms of their beliefs and behavior. The whole propaganda framing is pretty powerful. Calm conversation is “sealioning” and it’s bad. Dissenting voices are conflated with bigotry, even if they have nothing to do with it, and so banning dissent is “protecting the space” from bigotry and just standing up for the oppressed which no other instance will do. Of course. There are all these words that get redefined as other different words, and all sorts of facts that aren’t true that are repeated so aggressively and often that they start to get accepted, and so these things they believe and do start to make sense within the off-kilter light they’re seen in.

Nakoiochi’s response is not jingoistic here either

Yes it is.

There are two narratives about shelling in Donbas:

1. That Ukraine’s Nazi government was randomly shelling civilians in Donbas and Russia tried their best through good means to put a stop to it, and eventually, they had no choice but to invade.
2. That Moscow funded separatists to start a mini-civil-war in Donbas and then blamed the resulting death on an imaginary Nazi government in Kyiv.

I know that several times I’ve asked people who told me the first narrative to back it up, and they couldn’t. They would send me sources that said one thing claiming it said something else, send me random Youtube videos that didn’t actually prove anything, that kind of thing. I don’t actually know whether it is the second narrative that’s true, or whether it’s sort of a “truth is somewhere in the middle” type of thing. It’s hard to say, at least for me with as much as I’ve looked into it. But I definitely have seen several people who said it was the first thing and found out afterwards that they were talking purely out of their ass.

Uncritically saying that Moscow’s narrative is definitely true is jingoistic. And actually, dealing with people who disagree by simply shouting them down in a pack is more or less a key component of jingoism to me. The fact that Moscow says the first narrative is what happened means absolutely nothing to me, since they generally lie about all kinds of things constantly. I touched on that in that big conversation (with no substantive response, go figure). I’ve never heard anyone outside of that bubble say that’s what happened. And, like I said, even if it did happen exactly the way Moscow claims it did, that wouldn’t excuse three years of mass killing in Ukraine. They’ve killed more Russian-speakers now, probably a hundred times over, by sending them into the meat grinder or just semi-accidentally bombing their homes in the course of the war, than anyone ever claimed had been killed in Donbas.

If someone is ethnically Russian in eastern Ukraine, and they’re unhappy with the Kyiv government, there are means to deal with that other than starting a civil war.

I want to link here this - Ukraine Found Complicit in 2014 Massacre By European Court of Human Rights I’ve just seen too many swastikas over the last 3 years to say this is anything but an unfair assessment.

This is a great example of what I was talking about. It’s just lies. The underlying fact is true, the court did order Ukraine to pay some people because of what happened in the burning of the trade union building, but it’s being summarized in a wildly misleading way. On purpose. To tell lies to justify slaughter.

I would actually really recommend that you read the actual judgement that they’re summarizing here in this way. You tell me whether this page you linked me to is summarizing what the court actually found in an accurate way.

Like I say: I’m fine having a factual discussion about it, but I don’t see why I would be obligated in any way to be nice to someone who doesn’t want that and is also willing to be 10 times more offensive than I am when they’re on the other side of the disagreement. To me that’s not offensive, it’s just fairness.

Number of times Unruffled has advocated for the solution of attending any of the protests going on right now: As far as I can tell, 0

• https://ponder.cat/search?q=protest&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=845&page=1&sort=New (also search that page for “Democrat” and “either party”)
• https://ponder.cat/search?q=50501&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=845&page=1&sort=New
• https://ponder.cat/search?q=hands+off&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=845&page=1&sort=New

Number of times Unruffled has advocated for the solution of not voting for Democrats: Jesus Christ I think I’m going to puke

• https://ponder.cat/search?q=democrat&type=All&listingType=All&creatorId=845&page=1&sort=New

this isn’t a crime that would have been prevented by the gun control measures advocated by the Democrats, since none of the proposals involve disarming the police

Just had to get that in there, you fucking donkeys.

I saw some of these guys at the protest on Saturday. Someone had a microphone and spent, no lie, about 2/3rds of the time they had the mic aiming vicious criticism at the Democrats. Not “both sides,” not the whole system (that was the remaining 1/3rd), but the Democrats specifically. I thought about making a bigger post about it but I’m not even sure what to say about it. I think there was 0 criticism at all leveled at the Trump administration or anything that they were doing.

Great job guys

The five Pandavas with their wife Draupadi and brothers climb the Himalayas; all of them except Yudhishthira and his dog perishing along the way.[10] Then Yudhishthira meets Indra, King of the gods, who welcomes him to heaven but tells him he has to leave his dog behind.[10][11] Yudhishthira refuses to enter heaven without his dog and says he will go back to earth.[10][12][13] The dog disappears and it is replaced by Yama, the god of death; Indra is impressed by his actions and then his righteousness opens the gates of heaven for Yudhishthira.

I am not studied in this. But the version from “Great Masters of the Himalayas,” I liked better.

Beside King Yodhastar crouched his dog, faithful companion of the terrible journey. “May I take my dog into heaven with me?” he asked Truth.

“No! Your dog must live many lives on this earth. When he reaches your state he may enter Bhramakand, but not now.”

The King remonstrated that the dog followed him in his perilous search for Truth, had endured all the hardships and surely should be permitted to share in the reward. “My wife and my brothers failed me [in this version, some of them died on the way and some gave up and left him] but not this dog,” he added.

“Let us go,” God spoke sternly.

King Yodhastar pleaded to be allowed to take his dog but Truth was obdurate. “This is not just or right!” the King cried. “I came hither for you, Truth, not for your Heaven and if I cannot take my poor dog who shared the pain and should share the joy of reward with me I shall not enter your Heaven. Nor do I think you just and merciful, you, the God of Love and Justice are doing the works of darkness. I shall remain with my dog.” Thus spoke the valiant king.

“Look, King, at your dog,” was the compassionate answer. There was no dog to be seen!

“That, good King, was your last test. You have triumphed over all. Now come with me.”

There is a whole genre of smuggling that is literally just buying a bunch of watches or couple of high-end laptops or something and then throwing them in your suitcase and doing exactly this.

If you’re doing it with single items for personal use is it fine? Probably so, as long as you can avoid being extra stupid about it. Is it a good thing to get in the habit of? Oh mercy no.

Fun fact, the character of Ripley was written for a man, and only once the script was complete did they randomly decide to cast a woman for the part and see what happened.

And yes I completely agree with you. Implications about how Hollywood does things are left as an exercise for the reader.

Wait: My memory of the story was that Clinton loved to escort women around and constantly signed up for the duty, and everyone else on all sides of the equation had no particular strong feelings about it. Except for John Mulaney’s mom.

Воистину воскрес