OBJECTION!

This thread has made me realize that while I was watching the hearings on it purely for comedy aspect, there were actually people out there being like, “Yeah that makes sense.”

Love it when the government takes away our stuff. Please, take away more of our stuff. Love me that security theater.

If you don’t like the app, just don’t use it. Nationalism is a hell of a drug.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with data security and everything to do with other social media companies lobbying to eliminate a competitor, using anti-China sentiment and fear-mongering as a justification. It’s all about the money.

This is such a condescending form of analysis that totally misses the mark. It’s basically just, “Trump was bad, but some people still like him. Why? Must be because they’re just too dumb to remember things.” There’s no actual evidence that people have forgotten any of the stuff they mention, it’s purely just that.

To attribute the issue to memory would imply that there was widespread agreement while he was in office that he was bad, which has faded over time. But Trump’s approval rating for most of his time in office hovered around 40%, similar to Biden’s. So what’s actually happening is not that people were on the same page about Trump being bad when the events of his presidency were fresh in their minds, but rather, that his supporters never agreed with/cared about the things the article is saying in the first place. Framing it around memory is nonsense.

I only brought up Jim Crow in response to the claim that the the state will protect people and that there are ways to appeal the state of it doesn’t. The point being that having legal protections on paper is not always enough to keep people safe.

The “fascist enablers” don’t have consciences you can appeal to, because what drives them is money, and they are specifically selected for their willingness to serve capital and cause harm to innocent people. The system selects for sociopaths.

You analysis takes absolutely zero account of the systems or material conditions that exist which compel people to act in certain ways. Germany had an unemployment rate of 30% in 1932, but in your mind, it seems like the communists were only fighting because they wanted to and the capitalists were just reacting to that.

Had everyone on the left coordinated on mass nonviolent actions, like mass strikes for example, the capitalists would still have turned to the fascists in order to preserve their money and power. Violence or nonviolence doesn’t matter, what matters is whether their positions are threatened. You either never do anything to gain power in hopes of being able to beg your enemies for mercy, or you do whatever it takes to win so you don’t have to rely on that. The in between stuff where you pull your punches and try to disrupt things without defending yourself is the surest way to get yourself killed.

Yeah, and those same mechanisms existed in the Jim Crow South but that didn’t stop the Klan from lynching people and getting away with it.

Maybe if we just don’t fight the Nazis, they won’t be able to justify violence against us 🤡

Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities because if we don’t they might stage an attack and the “atmosphere of violence” we’ve created by trying to keep people safe will allow them to blame it on us and seize power. The solution is to just allow them to seize power directly through force, without resistance.

This is nonsense. Nazis don’t need a justification to use force against you, they can literally just lie and make shit up, like they did with the Reichstag Fire. It doesn’t matter if it’s true because it’s directed at the weakest and most vulnerable and stigmatized populations, who have the least capacity to fight back and the fewest platforms to counter their narratives, and once they’re done with them they work their way up. They will create terror on the streets and then use the fact that the streets are full of terror to seize power. People are going to try to defend themselves when attacked whether you think they should or not, so the only question is whether that resistance is strong enough to actually work.

I’ve seen too many examples throughout history of people trying to use nonviolence and do things the right way and just getting slaughtered because the other side simply does not care to be a pacifist. The world is clearly a better place because people employed violence in WWII to stop the Nazis. And street fighting in the 30’s was one of the ways that the Nazis secured their power in the first place.

Nonviolent methods are tools that are useful to have in your toolbox, and in many situations, they are more practical in achieving your ends. But there are cases were violence is more practical, even necessary, and one shouldn’t shy away from it when it’s needed. You gotta have your head in the game, the stakes are too high. A diversity of tactics is best.

The logic that violence is oppressive so it should be renounced in all cases in order to reduce oppression is idealist. You have to look at the actual evidence and material situation to evaluate what effects violence will have in a given situation.

Punching Nazis is cool and good. Just try not to get arrested for it because it’ll take you out of the action longer than it will them.

The background for the KDP’s uprisings is WWI. The war was incredibly destructive and pointless for every country in Europe. Before the war, the Second International (of which the SDP was a founding member) put out a manifesto with unanimous support that said:

In case war should break out anyway it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.

However, once the war actually started, the SDP (along with many other social democratic parties in Europe) suddenly found all sorts of reasons to rally around the flag and support it unconditionally. The British socialists would point to problems in Germany under the Kaiser, the German socialists would point to problems with Russia under the Tsar, and each side would talk about how it’s not that they support the war, it’s just that they don’t want to lose. And so there was a failure across Europe (except in Russia, of course) to create domestic pressure to put an end to the war, and result was that it raged on until it had claimed 20 million lives.

It was only at the end of the war, when it was clear that Germany was going to lose regardless, that a revolution occurred, initially supported by both the SDP and the communists, which is what brought an end to the German Empire. During that uprising, the SDP and communists split over the direction of the country, and the SDP won and sent in the Freikorps to exterminate communist leadership. So when you talk about Thälmann trying to overthrow the government, I think it’s important to put that in the context that the government in question had come to power only 4 years prior by overthrowing the government - and that government would go on to last only 15 years in total before the Nazis were able to seize power through it. All of which is to say, it was a chaotic period, and there were reasons for the KDP to resent the SPD as well.

The tendency to force history into boxes defined by modern day politics loses a lot of that nuance. In contemporary American politics, there is no Second International. There is no Great War. There is no Sparticist Uprising. It’s bad enough when contemporary politics outside of the US are forced into the boxes defined by American politics, we don’t need to extend that throughout history.

Hitler didn’t win because he beat Hindenburg after Thälmann split the vote. He lost to Hindenburg, the center-right candidate endorsed by the social democrats, then won anyway because Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor.

The social democrats were the ones who refused to back Thälmann, the only anti-Hitler candidate in the race. And the same way that the communists called them “social fascists,” the social democrats used similar rhetoric, frequently saying that the communists were no different from the Nazis, that there was no difference between the far left and the far right.

But also, we don’t have to keep rehashing 100 year old grudges from another continent.

No veganism isn’t a moral stance. It CAN BE a personal moral stance as well as a dietary one, but morality is not required and may not factor into it. It may be for YOU, but perhaps a person’s stomach just handles meat poorly in some fashion and therefore they choose not to partake. Don’t claim that everyone must ascribe to your moral stance. They do not.

That simply isn’t what the word means. If you think veganism is a diet, then do you think vegan leather is meant to be eaten?

Oreos used to use lard, in the 90’s, they changed the recipe to use vegetable oil to make it kosher, and also, coincidentally, vegan. I suppose this hypothetical “vegan purely for taste” person just happened to hate Oreos right up until then, even though they taste the same. They must have the most sensitive tongue in the world. “The Princess and the Pea” has nothing on them.

You suggest that someone’s stomach “handles meat poorly,” but that would just lead them to be a vegetarian. Does their stomach also “just happen” to handle dairy, eggs, lard, gelatin, etc poorly too? Does wearing leather give them a rash? If animals are harmed in the production of something, but no part of the animal made it into the finished product, do they, what, get assailed by malevolent spirits?

You are simply wrong about this, and your position on what veganism is is completely incoherent and nonsensical if you stop and think about it for 10 seconds, let alone actually read anything about it.

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products—particularly in diet—and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.

I am begging lost Redditors to read literally the first sentence of Wikipedia about a subject before trying to speak as an authority on it.

Do you mean:

If you want to be vegan because you enjoy it? Go for it. That is inarguable.

If you want to be vegan because you feel it’s healthier? Rock on. Go you. You may be right if you carefully monitor your diet. I would argue against it being better than vegetarian however.

Because neither of those is an argument for veganism. Veganism is not a diet, it’s a moral stance. Every case of considering it from the perspective of being a moral stance, as it is, you’re opposed to. So all of your arguments are against veganism, as it actually is.

Of course, the garbage that you pass off as “logic” is just, “It’s wrong to apply your morals to other people,” which is a completely laughable position. You “apply your morals to other people” if you think its acceptable to punish murder. You “apply your morals to other people” if you tell people it’s wrong to apply your morals to other people. But sure, it’s only “logically unsound arguments” that you’re opposed to, which is why you employ them.

Always check the receipts.

You can tell this is a good faith criticism by how it simultaneously criticizes them for not making the community private and for being an “echo bunker.”

I did not argue against veganism. 7 months ago, I did argue in favour of plants as plants are awesome.

The lie detector search function determined that was a lie.

If you want to be vegan because you don’t like factory farms? That’s not a logical jump to make. There are plenty of smaller suppliers you can procure from that do not have those issues; the smarter jump is to just not use bad providers no matter what the product.

If you want to be vegan because it’s eliminating suffering? Nope. You’re just making substitutions for things you’re comfortable with. Bad logic. Bad argument. You’re also applying your own morals (because this is a moral standpoint) to other people, which is stupid no matter who is doing it. From anti-abortion activists to Muslim extremists, your morals apply to you and only you. Do not try to enforce them on the outside world.

If you want to be vegan because it eliminates death? That’s also a moral argument. In fact, in the short term and per unit of death, being vegan adds MORE deaths, they’re just not a style you choose to recognize. Not to mention that increasing the crop yields to make up for the caloric deficit created by meat vanishing would also potentially kill the planet at this stage of human occupation. Crops that are easy to grow, less destructive to the land so they can grow it again immediately after, low maintenance, and cast-offs from other production are where animal feed comes from. This stuff could not be fed to humans or are excess.

Those certainly look like arguments against veganism to me! What would you call them?

The Strawman comment is you claiming I’m somehow screaming “1984” because of the ban. I am not.

That’s not a “strawman,” it’s a parody.

My original post here was made out of confusion, not malice.

The lie detector My ability to read the rest of this thread determined that was a lie.

Perhaps you guys could/should elevate this issue to the lemmy.world admin team.

That was kind of what I was attempting to do here.

So you’re attempting to escalate the issue to the admins… but not because you’re upset or anything. Right. In that case, why are you trying to waste their time?

All the rest of your points are completely irrelevant and I don’t care about them at all.

So, to be clear, you’re saying that you are not a vegan and you did argue against veganism, and are upset that you got kicked from a vegan space, but at the same time, saying that you’re not a vegan and argued against veganism and are upset that you got kicked from a vegan space is a “strawman,” somehow.

Are you strawmanning yourself? Wtf are you talking about?

When you’re not a vegan and argue against veganism online and the vegans don’t want to let you into a vegan space

If he’s lost the Holden Bloodfeast demographic he’s finished.

When I was a teenager, I encountered a bunch of different perspectives that contradicted the beliefs and ideas that I was raised with, and I realized that if you had wrong ideas about reality and tried to be a good person based on those ideas, you could easily wind up doing more harm than good. So I made a vow to myself to always pursue the truth - to learn about the world, to examine myself and my biases, to seek out and understand different perspectives, to ground my beliefs on evidence, and to reject peer pressure and comforting lies and to face reality even when it disturbed me.

No throw, only take?

My brother got fucked up psychologically from murdering Iraqis and Afghans and then came home and started “self-medicating” with meth while spending all day sitting in his house alone while listening to far-right propaganda like OAN. He tried to check himself in for treatment at the VA but they committed malpractice which nearly killed him, and he responded violently, which put a flag on his record making it difficult for him to get help in the future, while at the same time giving him a deep distrust of doctors. He was incredibly paranoid and accused everyone of being part of some sort of conspiracy against him and would make violent threats, veiled just enough to not be actionable. Eventually, he went over to someone’s house with a gun, but the cops had been watching his house and they showed up, he pulled a gun on them and got shot in the arm, which he lost the use of, but he eventually recovered somewhat on account of getting off the meth while in jail. He’s still a fascist and still listens to all the same shit, but he’s at regular fascist levels of paranoid-schizophrenia now.

I don’t give a shit about him but the pain he put my family through, a memory is burned into my mind of tears in my mother’s eyes as she gets another text and it’s another crisis and she can’t enjoy even a single night out at dinner because she has to act like a 911 operator 24/7 - and whenever I think about any of the people responsible for the stupid, pointless wars that caused all this, Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump, and all the rest, I remember that we got off incredibly easy, that our suffering was absolutely nothing compared to the actual victims of our country’s wanton slaughter and pointless wars of aggression, and I multiply the pain I felt in that moment and the trauma throughout the whole experience by a thousand, a hundred thousand, by as much as my mind is even capable of comprehending which is still only a tiny fraction of the reality, and I focus it into pure hatred directed towards all the people responsible for the wars.

One time when I was 10 my teacher rolled in a TV and made us watch some building fall over on the news. I thought it was boring and wanted to go back to learning stuff. But then afterwards all the grown-ups, and I mean like, all the grown-ups got really really angry and weird, like I would say things like that I don’t want to knock over other people’s buildings and they said that meant I was a terrorist.