Not every criticism of capitalism is communism.
But also, is it any wonder that a platform built without a profit incentive and centred around the concepts of mutual voluntary interaction rather than hierarchical control would attract a more anti-capitalist userbase?
and if you know how to make money under capitalism without working why exactly aren't you doing that?
You cannot be serious.
What a nonsense reply. Describing any rest as "slipping".
The number one thing, by FAR, that earns money under capitalism is investment. Not work, not skill, not merit. Just having money to invest and shave off your share of someone else's work.
The "people doing better" actually rest far more than your average worker. They just have money, so they get to make more money even while they are "unproductive".
I suppose that's up to Ukraine, right? They're the ones fighting so it makes sense for them to decide what terms they'd be willing to accept.
The only reason I opened the article, "whatchu mean fear of peace talks?!"
Like I get it, Ukraine shouldn't capitulate. But ending the bloodshed is a good thing, surely.
This comment is weird because it doesn't really follow from what I wrote.
I just find it strange that people value the tone of a message more that the content. Surely the content of the message is far, far, FAR more important than the tone it's conveyed in?
Like, when people post genocidal rhetoric, it's not better because they say it in a polite fashion. And it's not worse if they were raging while they said it. It's bad because of the content of the message.
But then people say stuff like you did, and it's kind of unbelievable to me because it seems like valuing the lipstick more than the pig it's slapped on.
I feel like we’re already being hurt by algorithms and whatnot only sending us what we want to hear and filtering out opposing views or ideas.
Wow. My experience is quite precisely the opposite. With algorithms on most social media constantly trying to shove "opposing views" in my face at all times. Except those "opposing views" are usually that I am a danger to society and should not be allowed to exist as an LGBTQ person. Because that is what drives engagement.
So uhm, maybe an echo chamber is a privilege you enjoy, but it's not universal.
If someone disagrees with me or has an idea different from how I already think, I should know that someone is out there who thinks differently than I do. Maybe I’ll even learn something or come to appreciate a perspective I hadn’t considered before. It can be interesting and even enlightening to see differing viewpoints, and that’s part of what’s so fun to me about the Internet. We can easily see there are all sorts of people out there with different thoughts and ideas.
But... I genuinely do not understand how you can say this? Because you have primed yourself to ignore anyone who disagrees with you with any degree of vigour. Some disagreements are not going to be civil. But those are often the MOST important disagreements! The ones that people are passionate and angry about.
I'm not saying every troll has something of value to say. But in my experience, you have it precisely backwards. The people who are angry are more likely to be sincere in their beliefs, while the dickhead who types like they're participating in a debate club is usually the one trolling.
They want me to have a bad time. That's different from people dogpiling a bigot and showing them a bad time.
Sure. But some people are arguing that bigots don't need to be banned, just block them. And that's the position I was pushing back against in my earlier message.
note: not to be confused with things I don’t agree with. It’s about tone and tact, not content
I've got to be honest, I find this kind of wild. That the tone a comment is said in is more important than the actual content of the message.
That assessment is precisely backwards for me.
You are hiding the problem from yourself, which makes your individual experience better. But the problem still exists as part of the community.
Think about how it plays out in practice. A bigot joins your community and starts posting their nonsense, but is not removed. Instead, some people block them. So now the people who see the bigoted takes are people who maybe agree with the bigot, and newcomers.
So if I'm a new potential member, I check out the community, what do I see? Well I see bigotry that isn't challenged or dealt with, that might even be boosted because the people who would reduce it have blocked the source. So I assume the community tolerates that kind of rhetoric, and I leave.
You have to actually take the trash out. Not just ignore it.
I have never met a self-described centrist who was doing any critical thinking. And I say that as a former centrist who was not engaging in critical thinking.
It's almost always "there are two sides to this issue, and because there are two sides there must be some merit to both, so thinking that one side is right or wrong is bad, and so anybody holding particularly strong convictions one way or another must not be thinking critically". Which if you noticed, is a line of reasoning that doesn't actually engage with reality or the nuances of the situation at all. It's just a thought-terminating cliche that leads to not thinking about an issue, but then concluding that one is more enlightened than people who hold strong beliefs.
The second I actually started getting informed and thinking critically, I shifted drastically in my politics.
There are many ways that societies can work. Criticising the way society currently works is not criticising all possible societies. The options are not "accept things the way they are" and "bugger off into the wilderness".