If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
for whatever reason always affirms what the white cultures believe is right.
I assume that by this you're trying to paint homosexuality and the acceptance of it as exclusive to white cultures. This is complete and total bullshit.
There's plenty of history of non-white cultures that were fully accepting of homosexuality. Japan is a clear example. Samurai wrote so many gay love poems to each other that they had established literary conventions about it.
What happened, around the world, is that colonizers and missionaries went around the world destroying indigenous traditions and customs and instilling bigotry regarding homosexuality. At the same time, suffering under the yoke of colonialism stifled social progress and the potential for the sort of organic social movements that happened in the West.
Even then, we are seeing in the US a rollback of LGBT rights that we only recently managed to achieve. I don't think it's fair to generalize "white cultures" as believing LGBT people have rights, just as it's not fair to generalize non-white cultures as not believing that.
If WWIII breaks out we're all gonna fucking die. Will there be any countries left after 24 hours?
So many of these people will play this little game where they pretend to be reluctant, like they care just as much as we do, but as much as it tears them up inside, they'll make the "rational" choice for the "lesser genocide."
Then, as soon as the leftists were out of the room, they dropped the facade and started talking about how great and wonderful Harris is and how they couldn't think of a single reason to dislike her. This wasn't the only post like that that got 1000+ upvotes, despite Lemmy being full of "reluctant" Harris voters.
A part of me wishes they'd just tell us straight up that they don't give a shit.
Related, in Star Wars lore, Tarkin got promoted (in the late Republic) after landing a ship on top of a crowd of protesters where were blocking the spaceport on Ghorman.
The thing is that the rebels were (mostly) white, and removing the racial lens allowed Americans to see that a struggle like that of colonized people against their oppressors was obviously correct. But it also means they can't connect the rebels to real world conflicts, because the oppressed people are generally not white, and so it's understood through a racial lens.
Libs think Trump vs. Harris was like Leia vs Darth Vader when in reality it was more like Darth Vader vs Palpatine.
By that logic, you don't even need to know my stance on Russia, because the fact that I opposed the war in Afghanistan "proves I'm not anti-imperialist." The Taliban definitely isn't socialist either, after all.
I’m saying it’s wild you promote it as AES when it fucking isn’t.
And I'm saying no one considers Russia to be AES, it's a strawman that libs tell each other about us until they forget they made it up.
If someone says something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
It's only baffling if you don't listen to the actual reasons people believe things and just assume it's because Russia used to be socialist, regardless of how many people say otherwise.
Liberals will refuse to listen to our explanations of our positions and then call our positions bizarre and indecipherable. Because you get your understanding of our positions from stories you make up and pass around about us that have no basis in reality.
"This is just natural free market competition. The real problem is big government trying to impose restrictions on Hawk Inc."
I have already defined what crybullying is and explained how your behavior meets it and mine doesn't. You only think it's a double standard because you don't understand what the word means.
Any philosophical theory that has anything to do with the observable universe is inherently self-centered.
Which is not to invalidate it, but it’s not objective, and it has nothing to do with science.
The way I see it, this places quite a lot of physics into the category of "nothing to do with science." The Copenhagen interpretation of QM, for example, is based on what we can observe and detect, and asserts that particles do not have an exact position because there are limits on how closely it is possible to measure it. To me, it's the same principle.
There is a subtle distinction in my position. I'm defining existence as a relational property, meaning that what I am claiming is that things outside the observable universe do not exist relative to me. They may exist relative to someone else, although I have no way of knowing if they do. Therefore, I don't consider it self-centered.
In opinion, the thing that has nothing to do with science is making claims about things that we can't observe, because they are outside of the observable universe. How can we say, from a scientific perspective, that the universe continues beyond that if we can't test that theory? By definition, such claims cannot be considered empirical or testable.
I'm describing a very specific behavior with the term "crybully," it is not just a general term for criticism. There is no double standard.
Evidence or GTFO.
There is no objective point at which something becomes unobservable by the expansion of space.
Yes, but this is assuming an objective, universal frame of reference, and that's not really a thing. For example, things like time dilution mean that there is no universal "clock." There is an objective point at which things become unobservable to my (Earth's) frame of reference.
It's true that there could be some alien halfway across the observable universe that could observe the stars that have exited our observable universe. But, we could not observe the alien observing them, because information still can't travel faster than the speed of light.
Evidence or GTFO.
Where did I act as a crybully? Do you know what that word even means? Where did I accuse the other person of shit, and then when they asked me to substantiate it, I took it as an attack? Where did I do the same to you?
I did not "crybully" them over toxicity, I criticized them for it, and I did not crybully you either, I've only criticized you. Correctly and accurately, in both cases.
Let me guess, "you don't want to get into it," and I'm just further proving my guilt by not immediately accepting your criticism. Ironic, I don't even know how many levels of crybullying you're on at this point.
Evidence or GTFO.
Put quite simply, ranting at me all the time whilst believing that you’ve done nothing wrong it absolutely typical of you, and I don’t understand why you think calling me names shows that it’s not.
Never claimed that it wasn't. I spend lots of time ranting at crybullies who accuse me of shit and then claim I'm attacking them when I don't immediately roll over and accept it.
I can’t quite believe that you put those two sentences in the same paragraph without the merest hint of self reflection.
What can't you believe about it? Being argumentative is not the same as being at fault.
You have a funny way of showing it.
What I do mind is coming in here and accusing me of shit and then not being able to back it up, at all.
It's really funny to me the way you libs operate, how "backing up a claim you made" is the absolute last thing you are ever willing to do. And how do you justify it? It's always the same. "Oh, I don't want to get into with you." Of course, then you'll happily continue the conversation! Just so long as it never involves having to substantiate your claims! It's such a consistent pattern of behavior, literally every one of you thinks and acts that way!
Remember, the whole reason you weren't willing to back up your claim in the first place was that "you didn't want to get into it with me." Well, what do you call this, exactly? You wouldn't have commented in the first place if you weren't looking to "get into it."
What this behavior stems from is arrogance, a belief that you are inherently superior and therefore people should just believe whatever you say. It's absurd. The sheer number of times I have asked people to back up their claims on here, only for them to get all weasely like you, while trying to continue the discussion, is far more than I could count.
You're literally just here to trade snipes. You won't back anything up because then we might actually end up with a meaningful and intelligent discussion. Can't have that, can we? No, because that would imply a basic level of respect of treating others as equals. And you get all pissy when I actually defend myself and say that I will only accept criticism if it's substantiated, because I'm not treating you as my superior.
Get bent. Evidence or GTFO.
and if you call out their bullshit, they use that against you too.
I accused you of being innecessarily argumentative and you shouted that I had provided no evidence!!!
Oh hey, look, I called it.
What I actually said, by the way, was that I don't mind if you call me argumentative. The thing that you don't have evidence for is when you assigned fault to me in my conversation with the other person.
This is such typical crybully behavior. Talks mad shit, can't back up anything, and then whines about it. What do you imagine you're accomplishing here?
You came in here just to talk shit. Literally, you saw two people you didn't like in an argument and you loved it, because it gave you the opportunity to gloat and act all self-righteous.
You don't even recognize your own behavior when I specifically call it out. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. Are you even aware of what you're doing, or is it just second-nature?
Literally what would I have to say to make you happy? You want me to just take all the blame and prostrate myself before your superiority, and anything short of that, any attempt to stand up for myself, or to explain my actions, is just further proof of my wrongdoing to you. This is exactly why I picked the name I did, because I completely reject your whole way of doing things and of approaching conflict.
It's funny how people told me I had said something misleading and couldn't point to what it was, and now you're claiming I refused to listen and can't point to anything I refused to listen to. Somehow, people keep assigning blame to me without being able to substantiate it in any way.
I don’t think you’re seeking information, I think you’re seeking argument.
I presented a rather thoughtful line of philosophical reasoning, and expected people to either agree with it or critique it. As one does.
Instead, people started critiquing an idea utterly unrelated to anything I said. Which you are now blaming me for. And now you're saying that I just came here "seeking argument," really? Did you read my initial comment? Do you really, genuinely believe that I was trolling and not looking for an intellectual discussion?
why would you pick OBJECTION! as your username?
Quite simply, because I find that people say things all the time without providing any sort of evidence, and I believe in calling that out and keeping things more evidence focused.
Whatever problems I might have with people being unable to substantiate or defend their beliefs with evidence, I have much more disdain for people throwing around accusations without evidence. Which people on here do, all the time, constantly.
If you want to say I'm "argumentative," that's fine with me. There's nothing wrong with arguments. What's more wrong is to talk shit about people without being able to substantiate it. Lots of people, not just on here, but on the internet in general, will make up bullshit about a person or group they don't like, and if you call out their bullshit, they use that against you too. "Crybullying" is the term I use for it.
I think everyone ought to have the chance to defend themselves and nobody should be going around talking shit if they can't back it up. I won't claim to be perfect, but if you don't go around saying things you can't back up, then you will find me much easier to get along with.
That's exactly how I felt about the US after 2001.