They birthed and normalized shitty internet behavior: rickrolling on the lighter end, trolling, doxxing, and swatting.
They would also do shit like make fun of mentally handicapped people, which would lead goons to harassing the victims IRL and teaching kids that this was all OK.
And they would go after people who talked shit about about them, criticized them, or otherwise attacked them. The 4chan army would come out in force and try to ruin people's online existence.
Before Q-Anon showed up, they had started calling Trump God Emperor during the election. I think they may just have chose him as the candidate who would cause the most chaos, but it's easy to see how others others would take their goals more seriously and want Trump as president.
And the cycles of shitty behavior over decades attracted more and more rightwingers. I used to think of them as a chaos collective, but the politics swung hard right.
And then they spread to other platforms with r/the_donald, pepe the frog, and calling each other pedes.
Canadian parliament mistakenly recognized and celebrated a person who faught for the nazis who was Ukrainian as a veteran of ww2, along with the prime-minister of Ukraine. It was a mistake made by the organizer, with no real evidence it was purposeful. The actions has since been denounced. Terrible thing to have happened, it’s a fucked situation, but people are attempting to make it sound like direct support of nazism. Which it was not
Also, unlike what the meme suggests, this happened exactly once
Actually it’s not the first time. At the time the minister of foreign affairs and deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, vehemently defended her grandfather who was an editor for a Nazi newspaper in Ukraine.
Freeland’s maternal grandfather, Michael Chomiak, had been a journalist before World War II. During the war in Nazi-occupied Poland and later in Nazi-occupied Austria he was chief editor of the Ukrainian daily newspaper Krakivs’ki Visti (Kraków News) for the Nazi regime
[…]
Her office later denied Chomiak ever collaborated with Nazi Germany. However, reporting by The Globe and Mail showed that Freeland had known of her grandfather’s Nazi ties since at least 1996, when she helped edit a scholarly article by Himka for the Journal of Ukrainian Studies.
Oh shit, so the country of canada has done it once before denouncing it and a single member of parliament has a history of defending her grandfather, who was not only a nazi but an author for a propaganda newspaper stolen from a Jewish guy.
I stand by the “only happened once” thing though. Your second argument is a singular member, who should of course be removed along with the speaker. It also has nothing to do with the current government of Ukraine.
The first is an embarrassment to canada and an action for which we as a whole and our legislator are partially responcible. The second is just one person, who is scum.
Glad you brought this to my attention though. Nationalism in all forms is a disgrace.
Indo wish you had given me a link to that quote though. In the future, if you quote something, provide the source. It seems like you’re hiding something when you don’t, which it seems you weren’t
This is a terrible position to take. Anyone can be educated.
The thing is, nobody likes being flat-out told they’re wrong, and with the way arguments on the internet go, that’s all that will ever happen.
Most of my friends are heavily conservative, but I’ve learned how to have productive conversations with them about issues, and it’s almost always “This is how it benefits you if it were different.”
It’s difficult sometimes, but it’s worth doing, and it’s important to understand that the guy you’re talking to isn’t the enemy. He’s just another dude.
This is a bit of an unrealistic position, especially if trying to generalise past the boundaries of your friend group. Your friends trust you, so by all means, talk to them and try to educate them. But trying to change a complete stranger's mind is almost impossible.
And many of the positions the left refuses to "debate" are that certain groups of people should not be able to exist within society. Like, the left isn't refusing to debate tax policy, it's always about bigotry.
And let's just be perfectly blunt. The vast majority of conservatives screaming "groomer" at visibly LGBT+ people aren't going to have their minds changed. You can't educate someone who does not want to be educated. And demanding minorities stand in the firing-line and fruitlessly try to educate the people who hate them, sometimes to the point of hate-crimes, forever... You have to question the priorities of such a demand.
Sometimes caring for minorities means giving up on convincing hateful people.
Every political opinion has a reasoning and differences in political opinions are usually based on differences in the morals or ideals of people. So why do you have to hate or discredit the opinions that dont match yours?
Refusing to debate a topic (aka refusing to hear the other side’s arguments) just leads no narrower-minded people. You cant have a reasonable opinion if you have only heard one side’s (your own) arguments.
Every political opinion has a reasoning and differences in political opinions are usually based on differences in the morals or ideals of people.
That is very vague. Because sometimes those "differences in the morals or ideals of people" are that certain demographics of people are inferior, dangerous, or otherwise shouldn't exist in society. That isn't something we should pretend is reasonable.
It's also not true that every political opinion has strong reasoning behind it. Some people just do not live in the same reality that we do.
Refusing to debate a topic (aka refusing to hear the other side’s arguments) just leads no narrower-minded people. You cant have a reasonable opinion if you have only heard one side’s (your own) arguments.
But we HAVE heard them. We have heard them for decades. We have heard them over and over and over again until our ancestors had to fight multiple wars against them.
We have heard the racism and the sexism and the homophobia and the transphobia and every other little bigotry. Stop pretending we haven't heard them out. We have.
And after decades of listening and trying to have these conversations people eventually say "enough". That's not being narrow-minded. It's the opposite.
The more room you make for bigotry, the less room you make for people affected by that bigotry. And if one wants to hear diverse views, then one should listen to diverse people. Bigotry leads to echo chambers.
One of the biggest problems left/liberal leaning people have when debating is concerned, is they’re often convinced they, and their viewpoints, are superior and this should be obvious to everyone.
As a result, they’re often completely unable to make a case for their beliefs when challenged. They never thought they would need to.
Being able to actually make a case for your beliefs requires actually understanding them, and knowing the downsides ahead of time.
Some "challenges" are completely without merit though. Conservatives like to "challenge" the human rights of women and minoritised groups. The rights of people to exist within society and pursue happiness are, to progressives, axiomatically true. These challenges aren't something to be argued, they are something to be rejected as abominable.
If conservatives want to challenge tax policies or foreign relations or other such issues, sure! That's a discussion we can and should have. But that's not the same as challenging the ability for certain demographics to exist within society.
I have nutflex but still ended up downloading ld&R because they would not stop fucking up the episode order or playing no more than one at a time before rotating back to a reshuffled episode menu and i JUST WANTED TO WATCH THE FUCKING SHOW
Honestly most of my problems in life have much to do with the fact that rich Southerners halted the Reconstruction in order to maintain dominance over the poor
I’m usually baffled whenever companies do a long term face-plant for the sake of short term profit. Really goes to show that what academics like to theorize about capitalism isn’t reflected in reality. Sure the system might work with people interested in long term gains but it very obviously is run by people that want short term gratification and in general just more of whatever they already have. Mostly that means money, because swimming in money still is not enough for these people.
Loot boxes and streaming are the best examples, the companies could have had a thing where they just print money. All they had to do was to moderate themselves a bit and not extort the customer for the last cent. But no, insane amounts of cash flow/profit are not enough, it needs to be ludicrously insane amounts. And after that some more.
Don’t want to go to a potluck!? I mean dinner party sure I’ll play dead to get out of that, but a potluck where you can eat free food while hiding in the play house like a goblin to avoid small talk! You need friends who can cook better.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.