EDIT: no, I don’t sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they’re losing an argument ;)

  • Mouette@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the ‘thing you dont agree’ with is hate speech or shit promotting violence for example that’s the only sane option you have lol

      • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here’s a comment thread where a Hexbear user said “I hope to kill people like you” because I simply said I supported democratic socialism.

        Going on any Hexbear instance people froth over telling anyone right of Karl Marx to “get up against the wall”. You guys are, and will always be, a joke.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If course you would, like a good little authoritarian.

          In my ideal society I’d give people like you the freedom you deserve.

          This you?

        • AlpineSteakHouse [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.

          The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.

          Dude you still don’t stop worker exploitation, don’t solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don’t end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world)

          Ok let me know how your method works out

          • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism.

            What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.

            The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory.

            I have, but thanks for the suggestion.

            • CarbonScored [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Assuming people are using words in the way they are widely and commonly accepted to mean (I mean, just look at Wikipedia for an easy starting point) is not a bad thing?

                • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m innudated with endless notifications from you dweebs, mistakes happen.

                  People keep telling me that I shit my pants based off the way I smell and the growing brown stain on my pants but they’re all tankies because they’re all wrong

              • can@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Maybe we can assume people got terminology wrong and not immediately jump to death wishes?

            • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              two words that are spelled exactly the same

              Social and Socialism are not spelled the same, neither are Democracy and Democratic.

              • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                What incredible insight. The word ‘social’ is referring to ‘socialism’ and so is the relation between ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’.

                It would take an idiot to mix these up, right?

                • AlpineSteakHouse [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The word ‘social’ is referring to ‘socialism’ and so is the relation between ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’.

                  I guess social security = socialism security in your world? Social welfare programs are not socialism and if your political education included anything beyond Elizabeth Warren’s policy page you’d know that.

                  • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No, social policies are not socialism, however, they do generally benefit the working class.

                    You guys are so worried about centrists that you are ignoring the fact that the US had a far right coup attempt less than three years ago.

            • AlpineSteakHouse [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.

              Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don’t identify your actual political position. It’s clear that the only political position you’d take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.

              I have, but thanks for the suggestion.

              Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I’m an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.

              • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Debatebro? That’s what Hexbear does best.

                I would actually love to engage in good faith discussions, but Hexbear users only operate in bad faith, particularly by sealioning. Like clockwork, you don’t engage in ideas but rather give reading assignments.

                I’ve read Das Kapital and agree with virtually all the premises about how society is unfair to those who actually generate the surplus value and think that we need to fix a system that breaks cyclically, as Karl Marx correctly predicted in volume I. The only solutions I’ve seen presented are a total revolution a la 1917, which occured before globalization. Anything close to this in the current globalized world will kill at minimum hundreds of millions globally due to interdependence on products that Marx would consider “needs”, such as medications and medical equipment like dialysis machines.

                The difference between you and me is that I’d rather work to reestablish democracy away from capital interests. I don’t want a dictatorship, I want a functional democracy. Propaganda is often used to disillusion the working class from democracy, and if you don’t vote in elections then you are clearly part of the problem.

        • Mindfury [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          because I simply said I supported democratic socialism.

          so you promoted violence first?
          i’m failing to see your complaint here

        • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I simply said I supported democratic socialism

          So you said that you support the regime of extreme global inequality against the third world in order to maintain treats in the first.

          • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I support what are realistic policies actually will push the status quo in the direction you want.

            Larping on the internet waiting for a revolution to occur seems like a nice fantasy.

            • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              IDK what country you’re from, but in America at least, a democratic socialist has about as much likelihood of being elected to any given office as a communist does, so if you’re looking for “realistic” policies you should look elsewhere.

              • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There are numerous democratic socialists who are in Congress, you just aren’t paying attention.

                Run for office. There have been many spoilers from genuine grassroots campaigns. Don’t want to do either? Keep coping and seething online.

                • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Who are you talking about? AOC? If your definition of a democratic socialist is a left-leaning Democrat then it is thoroughly incompatible with mine, because I would require at a minimum that anybody classified as any kind of “socialist” be staunchly opposed to Capital.

                • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Entryism always ends up changing the entrant instead of the system. We are revolutionary socialists.

                  • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s clear you never studied US politics if you think that is remotely true. The Gilded Age and the Great Depression briefly pushed America away from corporate interests towards policy that benefited the working class. We averted overt fascism a la the Business Plot and the ratfucking that Smedley Butler disclosed while being the most badass anti-capitalist ever.

                    You’re not a revolutionary socialist, you’re a larper who won’t do anything to better the world other than wait for this revolution like it’s the second coming of Christ.

                    You guys are the QAnon of the left.

          • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            So socialism, if it has any degree of democracy to it, which is kind of essential to socialism, is evil in your eyes.

            What version of decision making is acceptable in socialism then?

            Just one party rule?

            • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Democratic Socialism” is a term for a specific school of thought within socialism that I am criticizing for its tendency to align with imperial, ie US/NATO foreign policy that has created a system of unequal exchange that keeps most of the world in poverty in order to fund the excesses of the first world. It does not mean “socialism but we have a democracy”, that’s every form of socialism. Also it generally has a different meaning when applied to socialist movements in third world countries, which is why I wouldn’t criticize a party like MAS for the same reason.

              I consider China’s Whole-Process People’s Democracy to be the current gold standard democratic process on this planet. Democracy should not end when people vote for their representatives, it should be a constant process of polling and implementing the will of the people, and its success is why Chinese citizens have among the highest satisfaction with their government of anyone.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Tolerance should not extend to intolerance, and intolerance should never be a thing we tolerate.

      • letsgocrazy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it were that simple, then it would be fine.

        But the point is, people just start to label anything that whiffs of a different opinion as “intolerance”.

    • yeeter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So the solution is to just kick them off all the mainstream platforms and ensure they go to their own echo chambers where they are isolated from any reasonable counters to their ideology, which will just ultimately make the problem worse? Brilliant.

      It’s like the war on drugs. If we just ban it then surely the problem will disappear…except it just gets worse.

      How can people be this shortsighted?

        • yeeter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You ever hear of that black guy who makes friends with KKK members? Sometimes they give up their bullshit and they become friends. I will accept the risk of having futile arguments with many if there is a chance that logic and reason breaks through to a few.

          • seahorse [Ohio]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s different than arguing with people on the internet. Daryl Davis shows these people their shared humanity face-to-face. All I’ve ever seen from letting fash “debate” people on the internet is them slowly spreading their ideology to vulnerable people who are viewing the same conversations. Saying stuff that sounds reasonable on the surface like, “not everyone you disagree with is a nazi” even though they want to kill minorities as if that motive vs not wanting that to happen/doing everything in your power to make sure it doesn’t happen is a simple disagreement.

            • yeeter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I admit you raise some good points. I have always thought that people susceptible to extremism will eventually find it online, but maybe they won’t, and maybe exposing them to those ideas in rational conversation on mainstream platforms is too “risky.” My gut tells me that is not the case, but that is just my gut. It seems worthy of some kind of study.

          • Abel@lemmy.nerdcore.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I did that for years. Many years. It burned me out and made me much more of a thin-skinned and intolerant person with those around me in real life.

            I love places where they willingly come to redeem themselves (like r/IncelExit) but otherwise I just stray very, very far. It took a heavy toll on my mind.

            It is a noble thing but one that shouldn’t be required of most users.

            • yeeter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Cheers. Not everyone has the constitution to engage, and that’s fine. I do not think hate should be tolerated, but I think it must be confronted with reason. The only alternatives seem to be more isolation, extremism, and violence.

              • Abel@lemmy.nerdcore.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Honestly I still discuss online but it’s very rare. Mostly with teenagers since they are usually more open.

                There is a problem of even where to confront with reason. Most of the time you hinder more than you help on mainstream social media, because more comments on a post will boost it on the algorithm and distribute the original poster’s message further while they remain wilfully ignorant.

      • Someonelol@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well whenever regular people go in to their communities they get ridiculed and have their comments removed or even banned, so what’s the difference?

        • yeeter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Maintaining the moral high ground is crucial when attempting to fight extremists with reason and discourse.

          MLK understood this tactic and brilliantly deployed it with his non-violent movement, and he defeated extremists with reason and discourse.

          You can call me naïve, but wouldn’t have been a shame if MLK gave up when he was called naïve?

          When they go low, we go high.

          -Michelle Obama

          • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I wish we lived in a functional democracy where you can go “high, when they go low”. The only thing that has resulted in is eroding the democratic system by ceeding power that undemocratic individuals will keep for themselves.

            Edit: To add, I believe that Michelle Obama was right when we said that, but the world has radically changed since then.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah because normalising fascism in 2016 so that actual nazis came into the light and the mainstream sure helped make them less destructive and made them have less of an echochamber! Oh wait…

      • michaelrose@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you have the choice between an eco chamber where 10% of people are nazis and say nazi shit to other nazis and normalizing nazism to the point where mainstream gathering places are full of crazy nazi babble and having 15% nazis I would chose to contain the poison.