Yeah, libs have been very open about homophobia and ableism since Trump was elected and they had a crisis that warranted a suspension of the performance. Statistically, we know most men in the US are complacent with or perpetrators of sexual violence and a significant amount – even the majority in some places – fetishize youth and teen women. For Americans, it really is more reputation destroying to have done queer shit than to be a rapist pedophile (this includes “ephebophiles,” sorry).

They’re not going to get mad about racism and genocide, it isn’t even going to be on their minds because they don’t actually oppose the underlying values that facilitate those policies currently. They will make a show of anti-racism and constitution protection so long as it remains a rhetorical response exclusively.

These are evil companies, but I am curious what metric you’re using to say one is worse than the other when their objectives and methods are similar.

Lookit that, ephebophile strat went mainstream.

It actually makes more sense tbh. Being queer is far worse to fascists than being a pedophile rapist. This is especially damning when the person he sucked off is prominent in the conspiracy theories he depended on for the past decade.

Jesus god and more pre-rendered graphics.

They have to because the capitalist imperative of infinite, progressive growth forces them to constantly seek out additional speculative avenues for profit. The potential for a valuable product (stock) is more valuable than a good product and is cheaper to produce than a good product.

It is important to note that you are also a product in a surveillance capitalist state thaf commodifies every second of your day. The speculative value on more profitable avenues to source and sell your data has more speculative value than anything your patronage would generate.

My brother in Christ, check the context of the thread.

My guy, you commented on my thread. You’re the bother.

Learned a new thing men are insecure about.

I think you’ve missed that the assuming is kinda your whole problem here.

Yes, and it would be exhausting to entirely explain how flawed and ahistorical this is. For starters, you ignore social and property relations entirely when you imagine capitalism as “wealthy hoard money, empire make money.” Wealth disparity and imperialism are certainly elements in capitalism, but do you think all these scholars are just big dumdums who didn’t think of Rome?

I instead chose to encourage you to consider how you know what you know and that maybe you don’t actually know enough. You should consider now if that level of self-accountability is a waste of time.

Could you explain where you got your information on the historical conditions of capitalism? Is this just you interpreting what you’ve seen passively, or have you gone through the effort to find historians who have spent careers answering this question?

They said “tens of thousands of years” and you thought that meant two centuries before the Russian Revolution. I think you’ve mistaken dominant narratives of history as a European discipline with what has actually happened in the past. Yes, there are very many accounts of hierarchal violence, but that isn’t descriptive of how human beings behave. Most of what we’ve built has come from cooperation (think about how dependent the internet infrastructure is on free labour and cooperation) and the greatest obstacle we’ve faced as our communities grow is the exploitation that arises from patriarchal hierarchies. Exploitation is the site of those brutalities youre referring to.

Marx also wasn’t a historian, and wasn’t very knowledgeable about societies outside of Europe at all. That isn’t something we can fault him for as though it was his responsibility, but it is something you need to take into account if you’re going to engage with this progressive history model (Hegel didn’t know about’em either).

Kathleen Duval makes an interesting argument in Native Nations that we have evidence that indigenous Americans, in particular those who lived in relation to the Cahokia (Mississippian) civilisation, intentionally altered the trajectory of their social organization in response to this same exploitation. This isn’t to say hierarchy never existed again, though certainly in a less stratified way than the European settlers that arrived a couple centuries later, but it does teach us that humans do not want to live that way, which means they do not have to.

Oh my, how foolish of me. Of course of course, they didn’t all publicly concede and therefore the party isn’t a liberal party complicit in fascism intentionally, it just happens to be a liberal party complicit in fascism because of a few bad apples. I see now, I should totally trust the liberal party complicit in fascism because if I do, we might be able to cull those bad apples one day, promey.

I know what voting is. Maybe you shouldn’t make a habit of assuming people are just stupid if you don’t understand what they’re saying.

Hm, almost like that was the plan the whole time. They can say they tried and aren’t as nasty as those Republicans (WHO ARE NOT DEMOCRATS) though right? Democrats fully support fascist policies y’all, they’re hoping this admin collapses and affords them a reputation that enables those policies with greater public support.

Liberal doomerism based on imaginary restrictions, how new.

That isn’t the only instance I’ve engaged with, but yes I’ve found that larger and more generalized ones have more liberals. There is a particularly obnoxious form of liberal discourse that I’ve found consistent across them too. Liberals on Lemmy think they’re radical just for finding the loud fascism distasteful, and get very upset if you suggest that they aren’t radical enough. It’s less of the pompous fixation on hypocrisy you’d find on Reddit and more outraged entitlement to the desire for change.

My Lemmy experience so far ^

It has been awfully exciting.

Did you seriously not read my explanation and then called it disingenuous? That’s in there.