• 1 Post
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle



  • I get that there is lot more nuances than russo-ukrainian, but imo there is a lot more similarities than you seem to imply : both Russia and Israel claimed that the land belonged to them before, that they should get it back, and use violence to kill local people who tried to resist or move them. The only difference is that Israel did it with the help of western countries and partially according to their laws, so they get like an aura of legitimity, but the acts remains quite close.

    I do not like when people basically do not accept violent behavior but accepts them when they are allowed by some law or authority.

    (Also yes Hamas is doing bad things and should be held accountable in some way, just like Ukraine to my eyes. But still, for me it remains obvious who kills more, who steals more, who oppresses more)


  • I think there’s some point in exaggerating things where it changes the meaning of exaggeration. At first this cartoon seemed to me like a satire of conservatives, mocking their exaggeration by exaggerating it even more. Imo the problem with this being “right wing humor” is not that right winger actively believe what it depicts, but rather that they do not perceive how it’s so enormously stupid that it even ridicules right wing ideas. (Because here, you’re like “hey, leftist harassing their child like right wingers do is so absurd and implausible, haha”). Of course they could be very self-aware to the point that they could laugh at their own ideas, but i sincerely doubt there are much people able to do that in any political spectrum.


  • Yeah, i kinda agree with you, social media violence is “not” violence, or at least a lesser violence. This was my point : trans are the target of true violence, while being tired of hearing about them is not being target of true violence. This asymmetry may be the cause of that much people disagreeing with you.

    On the up/downvote origin, you are right, i did not knew it. Everytime i have seen it used, and so everytime i used it, it was as a like/dislike option. You genuinely are the first person i see complaining about it, so i considered you wrong on this, my bad. But the idea still remains in a different way : though you are technically right, maybe you still can consider that using up/down as like/dislike is a common thing to do.

    On the Facebook point, i do not know. It is rather a “like” system than a “like/dislike” : there isn’t really a way to disagree with a statement (the “angry” emoji being the closest, but it just conveys that you are angry, not if you agree with the com or not).

    Well, let’s take it as a personal opinion then. Now here’s mine : people seeking attention by complaining about supposedly attention seekers are double losers, first because of my judgment, and second because of their own judgment.



  • I mean, you mocked them using the exact reasoning you criticize them for, like “making a show of being hated -> attention seeker”. But ok, let’s forget about that. You may consider that you are actually mocking communities that are the target of true violence, not just downvotes. Like they get hurt, killed, harassed, even by administrations and systems ? Maybe that’s the reason for your downvotes. And did you realized that this is really the main use of downvotes ? Just a quick way to react. If you agree/like, upvote. If you do not agree/dislike, downvote. It’s very simple really. Either you don’t get that, either you are mocking people for using tools the way they were intended to. Both ways seem dumb to me. If you want a place that do not allows this quick reactions that are up/downvotes, well maybe switch for other platforms that are not designed around it ?



  • Eh, in general i agree with you, but i think in this case it could be considered as “ironic”. Like someone complains “I’m tired of hearing about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”, and someone replies “Im’ tired of hearing complaints about trans in public spaces, pls keep it for yourself, we dont care”. I think we all agree that the argument is not really good in any case, but as the second one was a reply, maybe we can see it as an application of first comment’s logic to itself.


  • Ok, if you want some info here is a little summary :

    • Banning people condamned for bullying/hate speech from every social media they used for it
    • Blocking websites (mostly porn) without judge’s approval, both physically and by forcing navigators/DNS to block it
    • More ID checking to “protect minor”

    And if you want details :

    The current proposition of law is a melting pot of many Internet security subjects :

    • preventing children to access porn
    • punishing websites that host pedo porn harder
    • punishing deepfake and ai generated montage (and montages in general)
    • preventing hate speech and violent speech in all social media, including chat applications
    • regulating the market of cloud storage providers
    • regulating gambling and real-money video games
    • preventing phishing

    They have different actions at their disposal :

    • Fines for website admins who do not comply
    • Forcing websites to check people’s identity to prevent minor accessing harming content
    • Forcing websites to ban some accounts suspected of illegal activity
    • Forcing websites to try and block a suspected person (not the user) from using/creating any accounts on their website (for max. 6 months to 1 year)
    • Forcing navigators, DNS providers and Internet compagnies to block any access to a specific domain for max 3 months, if this domain does not comply in (short) time to the administration instructions
    • Forcing websites to mention the name and adress of any person or company that host their content
    • Forcing apps markets to remove an app that does not comply to the administration instructions
    • It would be mandatory for vpn ads to always display a message that says something like “Pirating contents harms artistic creation” (does not have a lot to do with the rest, but it find it interesting anyway)
    • It would be mandatory for any content sharing website to stock datas enabling the identification of anyone who participated in the content creation
    • Easier police raid in places where content is hosted (no judge approval needed, they just get notified of the raid)

    Now, i did not hear from this subject a lot, mostly for the pornography part since we probably soon will have to show ID cards to watch porn. I remember that everytime there are more or less violent protests, government says it originates from social media and that they have to control social media to prevent violences. Most politicians i heard on this seem to not fully understand what is at stake, which is kinda usual.


  • Oh, okay thank you for clarification. I agree with you, sectarianism is to me one of the biggest problem in far-left groups. But I still think that this is not enough imo to justify that “There is no practical difference” between them and fascists, even if restricted to their behavior on those communities. Anyway, i understand this comment better now, thank you <3


  • An anarchist is fighting against military/police. A fascist belongs, or wants to, to military/police. An anarchist is fighting against people who hold some power. A fascist is fighting against people because of their religion or origins. An anarchist likes to vote and discuss. A fascist likes to follow orders. An anarchist tends towards decentralization. A fascist tends towards centralization.

    This are only some differences but spoiler alert : anarchist and fascist are not the same. They do not act the same way, they do not think the same way.

    I understand that you hate them both, it is your point of view, and it’s okay. But please, follow my advice : avoid trying to justify it with sentences as universal and strong as “There is no practical difference”, it makes the whole thing ridiculous.

    In the end, saying there is only “one viable […] party”, and even believing in a party itself, are also part of the problem imo. If you truly believe in this sentence, no wonder why you dislike anarchists and why they probably dislike you. But does it imply that either you or them are fascistic ? And if yes, did you considered that it could be you, who are defending a single “viable” party as the only solution, hating on every other option ?