Yes, that was one reason for the quotes. (and the winking)

Why? Why is it a virtue of some kind if when I go online I allow the same people to continually make that experience worse for me?

Choosing to allow that is a valid choice, but it’s not necessarily a healthy one, and choosing not to allow it is a reasonable choice for people to make for themselves for the sake of their own health or happiness.

Social media isn’t the entire world. Personally blocking the people I don’t want to interact with on specific platforms (or even all platforms) doesn’t remove my ability to interact with the world and the events going on within it, nor does it remove my ability to hear other opinions.

Edited to add - I fully support someone such as yourself choosing to NOT block people. But I don’t like that we’re normalizing the idea that we all just have to accept what is coming to us from social media in the name of “considering other opinions”, nor that doing so is inherently virtuous. I can consider other opinions and create an online environment for myself that is not toxic.

Now that the Israeli military has done several more attacks in Gaza since the ceasefire (including by a sniper who killed a child), and attacked a refugee camp in the West Bank for good measure, I stand even more so behind my assessment that taking the cease-fire seriously without having a reason to think it will continue is just poor pattern recognition.

You could have had Kamala Harris, who you could say might have been worse or might have been better than Biden. Instead, we have Trump, who is catastrophically worse, in every objective sense, by such a wide margin that I don’t want to think about it. Congratulations, I guess.

No matter how I try to express this it’s never eloquent enough for folks who don’t already see this to see it. I hope you are having better luck, you definitely crafted your argument better than I often do.

Remember everyone, the “ceasefire” that Trump “negotiated” (wink wink) is in no way just a temporary distraction, he’s better for Gaza than Dems could ever have been.

Enjoy your echo chamber, must be nice when there’s no-one that has a different opinion or disagrees with you.

So how I feel about this depends somewhat on which platform I’m on, but why do some try to paint it as a virtue to allow ourselves to be surrounded by toxicity?

I can be aware of what is happening in the world and engaged with people who have different opinions than I have without having to let them pollute the places where I just want to be able to exist without harassment and assholery. I can also make different decisions about how insular I want to be on one platform vs another. I don’t have to let those people into my life, and I frankly find it kind of offensive when folks suggest that I or others are somehow missing out by not letting them in.

No one should feel obligated to let themselves be the target of hateful rhetoric or comments that hurt them or bring negativity into their lives. Choosing to allow that is a valid choice, but it’s not necessarily a healthy one, and choosing not to allow it is a reasonable choice for people to make for themselves for the sake of their own health or happiness.

I mean really they are all fascists so really it would be some kind of anti-fascist movement.

🤔

I guess only people to the right and left are valid. The right is bad, and the left is good. The rest? I guess we don’t count…

Somehow you seem to have misunderstood both actual horseshoe theory and the comic mockery of it.

psst: the center is the part between the two ends. That’s what makes it the center.

This comic will be a poor fit when people don’t conversationally use horseshoe theory to compare the barely-existent US left (who support improvements that would help all demographics but which are somehow considered radical) to the aggressively hateful US right (who is now pretty sure they will get to see their favorite targets hauled away and deported or imprisoned depending on whether you mean brown people or queer folk).

Whatever the nazis did to undermine the educated is borderline impossible to do today.

And yet they are doing so.

I’m not the one you need to convice, you fucking tool.

Plonk.

1932 was a pivotal year in the Nazis’ ascent. It’s a terrifying parallel for today

Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies

Here’s the list from that second article. Article goes into detail for each.

1. Neither was elected by a majority. (not relevant now this was 2019 - but if you are trying to pick these apart one by one instead of looking at the picture they paint, you are still doing it wrong)

2. Both found direct communication channels to their base.

3. Both blame others and divide on racial lines.

4. Both relentlessly demonize opponents.

5. They unceasingly attack objective truth.

6. They relentlessly attack mainstream media.

7. Their attacks on truth include science.

8. Their lies blur reality–and supporters spread them.

9. Both orchestrated mass rallies to show status.

10. They embrace extreme nationalism.

11. Both made closing borders a centerpiece.

12. They embraced mass detention and deportations.

13. Both used borders to protect selected industries.

14. They cemented their rule by enriching elites.

15. Both rejected international norms.

16. They attack domestic democratic processes.

17. Both attack the judiciary and rule of law.

18. Both glorify the military and demand loyalty oaths.

19. They proclaim unchecked power.

20. Both relegate women to subordinate roles.

Though if you can’t see it for yourself by now you aren’t paying attention or don’t want to see it.

I hope we doesn’t mean the US. Trump isn’t going to bite the hand that feeds him.

The 53 days have started.

And folks are holding this up as evidence that Trump is “better” on Gaza.

Judge people on action, but don’t fucking label half your country as evil. Many of them have been spoonfed lies like religion since birth.

Can we skip right to the part where we show them films of the atrocities they voted for (precursors for many of which area already in today’s headlines) or do we have to wait for all those atrocities to happen first?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5307007/Clip-shows-Germans-walk-Nazi-camp-WW2.html

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2015/09/25/this-is-how-the-german-soldiers-reacted-to-footage-of-concentration-camps-1945/

There is no better measure of your worth to a conservative than how many hours you are willing to work in support of the 1% becoming even richer.

It’s not that I don’t understand those concerns, I just don’t think those are reasons to reject the concept, nor the obligation to make an effort.

How would you solve that problem?

I doubt I have the necessary understanding of the nuance to propose any good solution. That’s not evidence that one doesn’t exist, however. And if the folks who should be responsible for such things are choosing to abdicate that responsibility, I’m going to need a better reason than “because it’s hard.”

Me too!

Well, I can at least understand your point of view. Thanks for the discussion and perspective.

That’s a solvable problem, not a reason to reject fact checking as a concept.

“Fact-checking” is preserving a certain model of censorship and propaganda. “No fact-checking” is moving to a new model of censorship and propaganda.

Dude, facts are facts or they are not. There is no rejection of fact checking that will result in more truths being exposed to the world, only less.

My hypothesis is that they now except political support from Trump administration and to pressure the EU?

Yes. We will now export our fascism, making it essentially just the same imperialism we’ve been engaged in forever.