It would not bode well for the future of discourse if lemmy.world of all places gets shut down for radicalism. Our instance is significantly more radical than lemmy.world. Can you imagine some ecofascist idiot who posted on slrpnk.net a couple times committing a terror attack and getting the instance taken down? I can, which is why this news should be very concerning.

Edit: Just looked through some of the bomber’s comments and their replies and some users even pointed out that his rhetoric was reminiscent of ecofascism. Anti-natalism and ecofascism are ideological siblings. The backlash to this attack is going to catch environmentalist groups in the crossfire, with many environmental activists being accused of having anti-natalist views. Anyone who’s ever advocated for degrowth might get lumped in with them.

In this context:

• Equality could mean everyone gets one sack of rice regardless of their circumstances.

• Equity could mean each person is given a type and quantity of food that is appropriate to their dietary needs and living situation.

Equality is easier to achieve and may be just fine if your goal is just to make sure everyone is provided the minimum basic necessities of life. Equity is more complicated and way more involved in making sure that people are getting what they need to be on equal footing with regards to everyone else. One bag of rice will be worth more to some than others, after all.

Thought-terminating cliché right here. You’re already convinced that a better world isn’t possible for a set of vague reasons known only to you, but you’re too intellectually lazy to give it any thought.

I ask you to elaborate on why, not because I want to hear it (I’ve probably heard it before), but because I want you to actually think about it.

The problem is letting the AI digest the information for you. It is impossible to engage in critical thinking when you’re not actually doing the thinking yourself.

How do you publicly let AI do your thinking for you without even a hint of shame or embarrassment?

• You can criticize Zionism as an ideology, but you can’t call for its end.

• You can refer to the current Israeli government as “criminal,” but you can’t call for the dissolution of the state of Israel as it currently exists.

You see the problem, surely?

Removed by mod

In chapter 6 of the original Yu-Gi-Oh manga Yugi plays table hockey on a hot griddle with an ice puck containing a test tube full of explosives. Does that count as fire hockey?

I would plead for someone to show this man a microscope but I fear the conclusions he might draw.

Did the brain worm leave anything for the prions to replicate in or for the poor brain-eating amoeba?

He was also a Nazi. Many such examples of Nazis being into weird pseudosciences, especially ones having to do with innate biological characteristics.

Or we could require that churches actually do some good with the money they collect in order to qualify for tax exempt status. There should be no religious exemption, if a church wants tax exempt status they should have to do something to deserve it like charity.

Either way, philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution. Rawls emphasizes that the liberties of the intolerant should be constrained only insofar as they demonstrably affect the liberties of others: “While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.”

That’s a whole lot of words to communicate what could be easily described by reframing the concept of tolerance as a social contract rather than a moral precept.

The sedentary office lifestyle is genuinely disastrous for your health, both mental and physical. It’s especially insidious owing to the fact that the effects are largely invisible, just massively increasing your risk of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. That’s not to say that the other extreme of constant manual labor isn’t also disastrous for your health, just that I don’t think the health effects of a sedentary lifestyle are taken seriously enough by institutions and people in general.

So they took over a building they don’t own, refused to leave, and had a list of demands?

Yeah, sounds like something the police should be called for.

Would you say the same thing about organized sit-ins in segregated buildings during the civil rights movement? Same set of facts, took over a building they didn’t own, refused to leave, had a list of demands. If not, then clearly you believe that if the status quo is untenable and the demands reasonable then the action is justified.

This is peaceful civil disobedience in opposition to an ongoing genocide being broken up by the police state.

Which is why you should pirate Andor and ignore the rest of the franchise.

Congrats on becoming a parody of yourself. “Here’s a diagram made in MS paint that shows how stupid all this ideology stuff is. Anyway, only my tiny sliver of the graph is good and the rest of you are all doo doo brains. I’m so very smart and enlightened.” Please touch grass, I promise it will improve your mental health.

This is the way a child argues. You’re not saying anything or making any tangible point or clarifying what you mean. You’re just posturing. Frankly I’m embarrassed to have been baited into such a long and stupid argument, and you should be too.

my main point is MAGA has taken total control of the US at this point and you’re telling me progressives are the hardest working political party.

I have already explained why I believe that is a disengenuous way to frame things and rather than respond to any of what I said you just keep restating your point in increasingly derogatory ways.

To preface this I want to make it clear that when I say things like “the progressives” or “the liberals” I am referring to politicians, not voters in general.

I did not say progressives are “the hardest working political party” (they aren’t a political party at all, like WTF do you mean?), I said they are doing the most to fight fascism. The liberals are literally following James Carville’s advice of “play dead,” so it’s baffling that you would even try to argue otherwise.

I also explained my POV on why progressives struggle to take over the DNC while MAGA easily took over the GOP, but you just snidely dismissed it as “excuses” and refused to engage with my points.

All you’ve been doing is dodging all my questions with snide remarks. Sure I’m partisan and clearly so are you, but can’t you at least try to argue in good faith? I’m only still having this conversation with you because you are a very prolific poster and your output has genuine influence in the politics@lemmy.world community. If we can have a genuine discussion about how to fight fascism going forward I think it could be very productive.