No one cares what either of us are, it was only relevant to my anecdote. :P Your commenting pattern appears to have become somewhat manic, so I’ll leave you to it.

Nah, it’s pretty evident that either you don’t understand or are willfully ignorant/trolling. In the off chance that you are in fact that confident in yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Tactical_voting

When I was younger I was one of those “enlightened centrists” who believed in things like the purity of my vote, but reality caught up with me eventually. There is no merit to such purity in first past the post systems with an entrenched plurality.

The only virtue of a wasted vote is the personal satisfaction that you get out of it, and that personal satisfaction has no real world effect on politics. The only exception is when you are voting for a visionary with overwhelmingly popular support. (i.e. you would know if one is in the race)

Supervillain is giving him too much credit. I’ll grant you that he’s a cartoon character, but cartoon supervillains have more complexity than him.

Kanye and Musk embody a nearly identical archetype and we’d have the exact same problem if they ran for president and succeeded. The cult of personality that follows shitty celebrities is a self-perpetuating one. It’s rooted in nasty people admiring how important people can be nasty like them but without tangible social consequences. They form a mob around their cult heroes for that exact reason, strength in numbers. A safe space for the trash of humanity.

People in politics and business find Trump useful because he’ll open doors for them in exchange for attention. They get cozy with leading him around by the nose with that attention until they forget that he will backstab them when they stop giving him that attention or there is more value in betraying them. Musk does the exact same shit, so again, I don’t think that Trump himself is worthy of being viewed in the light you’re giving him. Similarly shitty celebrities are drop in replacements for him, and worse, they might be more intelligent in their cruelty.

deleted by creator

Most likely because American politics frequently pound the talking point of “far left politics” when talking about the political opposition (moderate left at best from an overseas PoV), to the point where American liberals have been conditioned to assume that they are being spoken down to when this type of language is in play. American leftists are also very anti-authoritarian on average and do not appreciate being lumped into the same category as tankies by simple virtue of people only discussing left versus right.

kbin lacks an API with an equivalent feature set. Ernest is aware of this and it’s on the bug tracker. Any working apps for kbin are using site scraping as a temporary workaround. In layman’s terms it means the app developer is doing a lot of extra work that will mostly get thrown away when the API rework is complete. Artemis is the only one currently doing this off the top of my head.

Thanks. Direct link to the pimp daddy comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36298422

It’s not just that he allowed them to exist, he created a special one-of-a-kind “Pimp Daddy” trophy to award to the moderator of r/jailbait and r/creepshots.

https://old.reddit.com/r/TrophyWiki/comments/mohrlg/reddit_trophy_pimp_daddy/

There is some whitewash in the comments there: “[violentacrez] received the trophy because all the work he did to moderate the site…” as if he got the award for keeping things clean, but consider that he contributed the vast majority of those subreddits’ content himself by cruising social media for salacious pictures of minors to share while he was in his 40’s, and the award is named “Pimp Daddy.”

Source? I am happy to shit on spez, but my sphincter’s aim must be true.

This is where the argument for unconditionally providing equal air time to bad faith arguments falls apart, and where paradox of tolerance comes into play. One side demands tolerance for itself but argues in bad faith, and the other is inclined toward tolerance with others because it’s what they would want for themselves. The latter is taken advantage of because the former does not return the favor.

The key to solving for the paradox is recognizing that there is a difference of scale:

1. If one ideology demands tolerance for itself but is intolerant of all ideologies aside from its own, its intolerance is broadly scoped. There is more intolerance in play than tolerance.
2. If one ideology grants tolerance to other ideologies except when their own is denied the same, then the intolerance is narrowly scoped. Intolerance is still in play, but it is a false inference to imply that those who champion equality must unconditionally surrender it to those who do not believe in it.

Pay attention to how many ideologies a school of thought is trying to silence and who their allies are. Unreasonable extremists can be found in all camps and their existence alone does not prove a movement’s bad faith or your own righteousness. Reasonable people should exist, making it more important to focus on the goals of the movement and how its better stewards comport themselves. Remember that people who open their discussions with rudeness and toxicity are compensating for the insecurity of their debating point and already betraying their own intolerance. They aren’t worth engaging with.

• Who are the patient and reasonable people that are standing up for an ideology?
• Does a leader for a movement rely on emotional appeals to unrelenting anger? Are they always angry and rude in a public setting, and primarily trying to appeal to those who behave in a similar way? Ignore their spiel and use someone else as your benchmark. (edit: But if this is the best they can offer and the leaders who are most frequently pushed to the top, this should be seen as a large red flag.)
• What happens when you try to engage in a conversation with the patient ones? Do they keep a level head and respectfully agree to disagree with you while happily trading points, or do they go on the attack with ad-hominems when you patiently poke at the holes in their arguments?

At the end of the day there aren’t any simple solutions and you’re left with a critical thinking exercise that only works for you. Be one of the patient people who is a good advocate for your cause, but do not allow yourself to invest a disproportionate amount of effort engaging with someone who does not return respect. Seek out those who return that respect, regardless of their stated ideology, and you will both be better for it when the conversation is done. And hopefully the result of those conversations will help other people make up their mind about who is truly acting in bad faith.

Yeah this is a memes community, but it’s something that I’ve been thinking about for a while. Feel free to quote/link/whatever.