The other user is right. Any tolerance for those ideologies gives them a foothold. It makes room for them. There can be no room, at all, for that shit. Ever. Arguing otherwise is dangerous. There is no nuance here. At all.

Over the past several days I’ve seen you draw out many good faith disagreements about racism or nazism into what seem like intentionally blurry “just asking questions” type derailments whereby you try to shift the topic of the discussion to other, emotional or tangential details and or try to misrepresent the issue at hand to make the racism or nazism seem not that bad. I really don’t think someone would do that if they were coming from a place of genuine confusion or curiosity or dialogue. I might be wrong, but taken together it really gives the impression, intent aside, that you’re trying to spin up plausible arguments for far right stuff and then sow confusion whenever people say “hey, don’t do that, it’s harmful”. I just don’t believe there’s wiggle room here. I don’t want to have a circular conversation about it, but i do want to point out directly what you’re doing, because I think it sucks, and I think that you should stop.

I just want to state very emphatically that deradicalizing people is a specific skill set and set of actions that is completely different than “being friendly to nazis”. And tolerating bigotry so that people don’t feel bad about their bigotry is just tolerating bigotry. On that note, on another post you argued heavily with multiple users that white privilege is not real and that you were being oppressed for your whiteness. I thought maybe you were very young, or confused, and tried to have empathy and explain some concepts, but here you are now also arguing that we need to be nice to nazis for the good of society so that they don’t feel oppressed. I suppose you might say that pointing this out and making you feel more oppressed would drive you further away, but a better approach, i think, would be to tell you very very directly that the things you have been saying here, in multiple places, are white supremacist talking points. And no one here is going to condone that. Stop. If you need help stopping, that is your responsibility, not the hypothetical 9 other peoples’.

RIGHT. Thank you for pointing this out.

:::

I feel like they always try to make it sound more complicated and high minded. I really don’t believe it is!

I really struggle to take seriously what these tech people say about ‘not wanting to censor’. They made a business calculation, and maybe an ideological one, and decided “we want that nazi money, it’s worth it to us.” which really tells you everything about a company and how it is likely to approach other issues, too.

Mike Johnson is doing creepy, but very unfortunately mainstream weird patriarchal purity parenting in public and I hope it highlights the fact that among a pretty large segment of the population, this is seen as acceptable and goes unchallenged.

I think there’s probably a lot of profit in creating the impression among (disproportionately young) users that they can, though.

I disagree with you here. I just don’t think it makes any sense. People are too complex and varied.

Fascinated by this. Especially because it seems now (ideally) someone with more time and expertise than me will now have to verify or disprove whether companies really do this.

I don’t think you can know anything about a person based on their perceived affiliation to a culture. Wars, nuclear or otherwise, aren’t fought by cultures or even countries, but by groups of powerful individuals within those things, and people are all different and have infinitely varying thoughts about things that their governments do, or that other people they share a group affiliation with do. I think it’s best to target any resentment about a specific event at the actual people who took part in making it occur, and not at people who happen identify with the same culture as the hypothetical nuclear perpetrators. The latter doesn’t make any sense to me, unless the goal is to come up with a pre-justification for cruelty or discrimination, which often has a secondary practical purpose beyond just “I’m upset about that nuclear war”.

You’re right. It’s gotten too easy for me to forget that, these days. Banking on the fact that most people do not actually want to cross that divide.

Yupp.

Strong words from the anti ceasefire country. A real moral stand here.

Horrifying. I only have to hope that when it comes down to it, more people than not will realize internally ‘i am not actually willing to hurt people, i just wanted to say those things, and I’m kind of embarrassed about it now’ and then go back to being quiet bigots. I need to believe this about my fellow humans to get through the day.

I really feel like this has not been reported on enough. This is really deeply scary shit, and extremist conservatives in every country are talking notes.

Thanks y’all

Doe anybody happen to know a good site or source to find out who owns which chocolate products?

Hey I just want to say i think this is a really good question and I’m glad you asked it. So many things get recycled into the language and we don’t know/ever get taught their original meanings. I think it’s good to look into, not just to avoid social slip ups, but because language and idioms have an impact on how we think about things. I’m glad to have these links on my radar

deleted by creator