It’s the death of the macro culture. All the styles from all the previous eras now coexist and are very much in depending on what sub culture you belong too. Like if you are the edgy kind of teen right now you are wearing y2k style clothing, but if you are more of a normie you wear more classic street wear. If you’re a fashion forward guy in his late 20’s or early 30’s, 40’s to 60’s inspired menswear is the thing to wear. And so on.

This is hands down the most unhinged thing I’ve read in a long while. You really ought to go to touch grass or something my guy. I’ve never even seen someone say shit like this on 4chan, thats how absolutely unhinged you are dude,

It’s irrelevant, the message was never going to be let in.

Removed by mod

Exactly you’re not debating my point at all, or at least it didn’t feel to me like you did but rather that you talked through me and went with something else that’s not really what I’m talking about in my original comment.

My point is not moderation is not required or wanted or needed, but rather that in this particular situation, Jay (Bluesky CEO) is overtly stating that she’s not going to allow people to be banned based on opinions that are not breaking the rules. There already is moderation, but they are not gonna crack down on people because they said something (and this is a hypothetical scenario though I think it’s also relevant; to be honest I don’t know the original comments that started the controversy) that some might consider transphobic based on their narrow interpretation of what is or isn’t an acceptable view point about transgender topics. This is the example I gave about myself, I’ve been called transphobic simply because I’ve suggested that it might, in some cases, have a neurological cause. And Ive read a few studies about the subject hence why I bring it up in the first place. I in fact was banned from a board here because of it, this is what Jay says she will not allow to happen. Which is healthy, and honestly the paradox of intolerance is not apodictic truth, and I’m becoming more and more convinced that it is actually more harmful through mechanics similar to the Streisand effect. But that’s neither here nor there.

If it seems to you that Im uninformed it’s more about me not wanting to put a lot of effort into comments and English actually being a second language. Most of my views are informed, if I’m not informed about something I usually don’t have a view until I become acquainted with the subject.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/645704/slim-majority-adults-say-changing-gender-morally-wrong.aspx

Accepting that people can live as they wish is not the same thing as transphobia not being a common view.

I think the bit about cancel culture is a bit of a straw man argument because that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Look at my comment, again. Maybe someone is in favor of strong immigration laws, which I think is a totally valid opinion. If you define as Nazi anyone who agrees on any point with MAGA, you would probably call for that persons banning from the site under your paradox of free speech. But that’s only because your interpretation of Nazi is so loose that it doesn’t mean anything anymore. And with my example of being called transphobic, like you and someone else took it in entirely different directions than I even implied. I simply said that I believe it needs to be understood if it has a neurological cause or not in the sense of: is there a tangible neurological difference? Answering that question might help with understanding how to better help the population that suffers from gender dysphoria. I never implied or alluded to that if it was neurological it invalidated anything, much like I don’t think that ADHDs neurological nature means anything different other than we learned how to better treat the condition.

I know it’s not the same thing hence why I didn’t call it socialism and added the “national” to it.

I’ve never said the opposite. It’s just a matter of, seeking knowledge which could result in finding ways to ease suffering. That’s exactly my position 100%.

You’re misrepresenting the situation a little I think. She’s saying that if you want a super duper safe space where no one challenges your agenda in any way, you can use the protocol to build your safe space but that they will not alllow people into banning anyone just because they disagree with their views if they are not breaking the rules.

Nazi is super overused these days so it is a meaningless label: I have been called a nazi despite the fact that I’m not white, I do not believe in national socialism and do not approve of the methods and ways of the MAGA movement all because I say that not all MAGA says is incorrect. I’ve also been called a transphobe because I think transgender identity in some cases might have a neurological cause due to a significant amount of evidence for it and that it is important to research it but trans activist think its an excuse for ErASuRe.

This idea that there is knowledge we should not obtain because it could be dangerous (all knowledge is dangerous! It’s literally one of the oldest tropes in mythology), or that we need to protect people from ideas is so absurd and irrational that it really makes it hard to have discourse with people who generally speaking are on your same page. It feels as though there is a small very vocal online group of people who want to turn the world into a Fisher Price paternalistic dystopia.

I don’t think there’s a lot of bad people in the world as in people with bad intentions. I’d say they are ignorant and selfish.

This was in the context of Charlie Kirk, not MAGA as a whole. And I do not think that what Charlie Kirk proselytized was fascism, you could call it reactionary or regressivism but not fascism per se. Fascism has too much of a focus on military action which I do not think Charlie endorsed that strongly except in his support of Israel which he was shifting on before he was killed. It’s not that what he preached was better, but it was a different kind of bad.

deleted by creator

I like to refer to this one, because it’s the most specific one unlike Umberto Eco’s definition which is more open ended and applies to almost every political movement in the 21st century depending on your perspective and are more about the characteristics needed for a fascist movement to rise rather than the characteristics possesd by fascism itself.

Italian historian of fascism Emilio Gentile described fascism in 1996 as the “sacralization of politics” through totalitarian methods and argued the following ten constituent elements: a mass movement with multiclass membership in which prevail, among the leaders and the militants, the middle sectors, in large part new to political activity, organized as a party militia, that bases its identity not on social hierarchy or class origin but on a sense of comradeship, believes itself invested with a mission of national regeneration, considers itself in a state of war against political adversaries and aims at conquering a monopoly of political power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and deals with leading groups, to create a new regime that destroys parliamentary democracy; an “anti-ideological” and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself antimaterialist, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, antidemocratic, anti-Marxist, populist and anticapitalist, and expresses itself aesthetically more than theoretically by means of a new political style and by myths, rites, and symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize, and integrate the faith of the masses with the goal of creating a “new man”; a culture founded on mystical thought and the tragic and activist sense of life conceived of as the manifestation of the will to power, on the myth of youth as artificer of history, and on the exaltation of the militarization of politics as the model of life and collective activity; a totalitarian conception of the primacy of politics, conceived of as an integrating experience to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses in the organic and mystical unity of the nation as an ethnic and moral community, adopting measures of discrimination and persecution against those considered to be outside this community either as enemies of the regime or members of races considered to be inferior or otherwise dangerous for the integrity of the nation; a civil ethic founded on total dedication to the national community, on discipline, virility, comradeship, and the warrior spirit; a single state party that has the task of providing for the armed defense of the regime, selecting its directing cadres, and organizing the masses within the state in a process of permanent mobilization of emotion and faith; a police apparatus that prevents, controls, and represses dissidence and opposition, including through the use of organized terror; a political system organized by hierarchy of functions named from the top and crowned by the figure of the “leader”, invested with a sacred charisma, who commands, directs, and coordinates the activities of the party and the regime; corporative organization of the economy that suppresses trade union liberty, broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the “productive sectors” under control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions; a foreign policy inspired by the myth of national power and greatness, with the goal of imperialist expansion

Christian authoritarianism while having some overlap of course would argue the primacy of the bible, while fascism is more about the primacy of the state and even religion is subjected to the state.

That’s the definition for totalitarianism, not fascism which is a more specific thing, and nazism which is an even more specific type of fascism.

Not really if anything the Nazi label has lost all meaning which is the point Alex Jones of all people made a few days ago when he came out with the hitler Stacie. If you call every right wing ideology nazi, then nazi loses all value as a label as someone else pointed out. Christian nationalism is one thing, nazism is another and calling them the same thing has only achieved that now the average person rolls their eyes when you call a right winger a nazi.

Only because people insist on using fascism as a term to describe anything authoritarian.

Or more specifically as christian autocracy.

Like or not fascism has a definition, it even has a manifesto. Calling everything that is right wing fascism is about as helpful as when the right calls the center left wing communist.

People like you is why politics are the way they are right now. You are as brain dead as the MAGATards. Now call me ableist for calling you a retard. Retard.

FYI MY definition of retard is not a description of someone intellectually disabled, but rather a description of someone who deliberately chooses to become intellectually disabled. Words can mean anything!

Yes, that’s how systems perfect themselves. Once more Hegel is proven correct.