Yeah I’ve already saved this thread for when you lie about me to someone else. Called that in the first comment.

Meanwhile someone in your ingroup admits they did exactly what I said, but they said nuh-uh before repeating exactly what I said they said, so it doesn’t count. Again: first comment.

Honestly, thank you for being an uncomplicated example of exactly what I’m talking about. I could put a sticker on your forehead and you’d try rubbing it off the guy in the mirror.

‘He kinda did.’

‘I kinda did.’

So you’re a nazi?

Troll.

good media should crowd out the bad.

Does should mean will?

Disinformation is not erased by correction. Brains don’t work that way. Reactionary radicalization must be prevented, because curing it is a thousand times harder. This is protecting people from harm through speech, as much as censoring directed threats or bigoted abuse. Polite phrasing on intolerable beliefs is just mobster speak: ‘it would be a shame if anything happened to your children.’

I think it was meant as a gotcha question

It was meant as a universal touchstone. Surely, I thought, everybody recognizes literal nazi propaganda should have been stopped, at some point. But no: that obvious extreme was met with milquetoast ‘well I wouldn’t read it.’ Neither did the Jews, buddy. Didn’t help. Systemic problems aren’t about you.

By the by, calling pointed questions “gotchas” is also a conservative tactic. I opened gently with acknowledgement that at one point the nazi party was just some schmucks. But not only did you suggest the problem with pro-holocaust propaganda was sourcing, you outright invited modern fascists to the table, so long as their racism is scientific racism. You can’t wedge yourself under a low bar and claim it was a trap.

The person in question told you I was right, and you agree with them, but still pretend I’m wrong.

Which is different from the ingroup-based reality I described… somehow.

My level being an accurate reference to specific events I’m prepared to source.

When you recognize you were wrong, your beliefs are supposed to change.

Debt is destructive because it detaches prices from reality. It’s how school, cars, houses, and medicine became comically unaffordable. If you can make up a number and demand people pay you forever then you don’t need to engage in actual mundane capitalism.

You are functionally illiterate.

Word salad.

Good day.

Hey, so… do Democrats get invited to LP conventions?

I’ve spent twenty years bickering with libertarians online, in a rich tableau of bickering with damn near everyone online, and the few typical improvements over run-of-the-mill republicans are counterbalanced by suggesting whites-only businesses should be left to the market. As a rule, they’re not bigots… but they view bigotry as individual choice, where prevention means ‘well I wouldn’t–’ and solutions go ‘you should just–.’

Systemic problems are not addressed by individual action. That’s. What makes them systemic. I know you have glimpsed the elephant, walking around feeling its shape, because you’ve said artificial scarcity can violate the non-aggression principle. That doesn’t actually make sense, but it understands something’s fucked, and searches for reasons, using the cards you’re prepared to draw. This was in the thread where you suggested that bombarding people with “SMOKE!” ads and making their deadly chemical dependency as gentle as possible was a perfectly fine level of manipulation for profit. Admirable, even. A commendable example of unrestrained markets doing something good. Like so long as you can say choice with a straight face, problems aren’t real.

Meanwhile this herd of alleged porcupines isn’t notorious for direct action against overbearing police presence, except for those armed pricks harassing meter maids a decade ago. Y’all chided ‘get government out of the marriage business’ like that’d solve corporations excluding a man’s husband from healthcare. All the Ron Paul bros on reddit were fine with state governments doing whatever, so long as the boot on their neck wasn’t federal. Your party convention hosted a fascist. If the grand philosophy was more of an excuse, for the supermajority of those who identify with it, what would look different?

Ohhh, Universal Monk slandered me again. No, an obvious exaggeration about instance-owners escalating their discouragement against Lemmy’s most block-evading troll is not somehow an endorsement of crimes, you adorable little dingus. You adorable vote-manipulating sockpuppet, if we glance at your own modlog and pretend that’s infallible.

So your whole ‘we know you’ schtick is just one guy clutching pearls about me saying what an asshole he is, huh? That’s disappointing. When I argue with sugar_in_your_tea, there’s notes. In our previous interaction he kinda defended actual Nazi newspapers, and I’ll give the benefit of context and nuance, but that shit’s coming up again. You play a weak game if you wanna come out accusing someone of murder fantasies and gangstalking, and your whole basis is - ‘but a tankie said so!’

Meanwhile, you’ve done less than nothing to distnguish yourself from any other conservative. You want to label me, and pretend that’s a substitute for any form of counterargument. Like. The whole accusation was, y’all just sneer at outsiders based on this ideology-as-identity, and reach for excuses to justify that kneejerk conclusion.

And your rebuttal was to do that three times in a row.

Your chosen example is ‘How do we solve this profitable abuse?’ ‘Don’t.’

At best - your philosophy has been co-opted by rich bastards seeking high-minded excuses for destroying all obstacles to their consolidation of wealth and power. At worst they invented it. As they’ve invented countless internally-consistent pretenses they will adopt or abandon as it suits their plain and simple motives.

The best-case scenario, where there really is some core of true believers and they’re all you’d like to talk about, sees you use cigarettes as a positive example. Manufactured desire converted to chemical dependency. It’s a denial of systemic problems, in an era where systemic problems from profitable abuses might end human civilization.

An approach to policy that demands no policy is the sound of one hand clapping. At least I think that’s the gesture it’s making.

I invite you to bring receipts for any of those shrill claims, because it’s inevitably going to be a couple shrugs about Charlie Kirk, and then nothing. Glib frustration with infuriating nonsense, which you’ve somehow twisted up into lurid allegations about… stalking? I cannot even guess what the fuck inspired that fantasy. And you put ‘troll accusations’ in the same breath. Bit of a disconnect, yeah? Arson, murder, jaywalking? I gladly admit to calling people trolls, when they’re trolling.

Like when they just make shit up and don’t have an argument.

Like this directed abuse in the absence of fact.

At no point were you asked to believe me. That denial is a confession. It speaks to a worldview fixated on interpersonal loyalty, where things are true because a trusted person says them. You’ll never agree with me because claims from the outgroup are automatically wrong. That tribalism is the core of conservatism. You don’t have an answer, and that doesn’t bother you, because you’ve already drawn me as the soyjak, and apparently that’s all you think there is to reality. What a shame there’s no way for opposing claims to be settled by lookin’.

Ooh, I’m well-known. Shame it’s for something made-up. I’ve long been an absolute crank about ranked voting and breaking the two-party system.

I have not seen any alleged third party fall so consistently to one side, as libertarians backing republicans. You can glibly denounce ‘both sides,’ but so does one side, and it’s the side y’all routinely vote for. Pretending the outright fascists are only as bad as the ineffectual liberals is standard rhetoric for those fascists. I have no love for the democratic party, but they’re a thousand times better than the bastards currently snatching people off the street. Your beef with people who want cheaper healthcare needs to be fundamentally distinct from your beef with people openly drooling about rounding up sixty million Americans.

Observable reality is not a matter of opinion. On some subjects, you can speak your mind, and be wrong. Claiming any great bulk of self-professed libertarians are-too distinct from and unaligned with generic conservatives is observably wrong. You know who else claims that? Conservatives. The ones who aren’t fully in the cult act like there’s some silent mass of real conservatives, like however we pretend they were thirty years ago, and they’re gonna ride over the hill and put all this extremism behind us. But no. It’s just the extremism, and a facade.

The facade for this group is a lot of high-minded academic language to say, let rich people wield unchecked power. Pleasant-sounding excuses to eliminate societal guardrails against discrimination, poverty, hunger, and child laborers who can’t count to ten.

Actual pragmatic property-fetishism would still acknowledge the diminishing marginal utility of money and tax the hell out of rich people. A handful of guys being able to shape an entire country is antithetical to any visions of decentralized order. Everyone does better when that excess is spent on infrastructure.

Actual economy-uber-alles thinking would demand a high minimum wage, so people can buy things. If a business can’t afford to pay a comfortable living wage, they fail, oh well.

Actual individualist fixation would expect amazing schools for everyone, so no brilliant budding minds are doomed to obscurity. Do you want meritocracy, or do you want to measure how rich some kid’s parents were? Some beat the odds, but most don’t, because that’s what odds are.

A society arranged on your stated ideals would look nothing like what you advocate. What you advocate looks an awful lot like what republicans advocated, before they went mask-off. A gun in every fridge and private school and deregulated everything and tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. These are just demands from hierarchy, to increase hierarchy.

Libertarianism does not exist.

It’s a stalking horse for generic conservatism, where ingroup good and outgroup bad. Then you shuffle cards to form argument-shaped sentences following the word “because.” If they differ from yesterday’s sentences, eh, who cares.

‘Do a whole bunch of shit at once’ seems unreliable. But you can image-to-image from parts of a whole render, and get specific pieces to come out better, and then fit back into the big picture.

The two elements of useful generation seem to be filtering and editing. Say you’re doing a comic page. You want a particular expression in one panel? Yeah, you’ll have to try several times, maybe doodle over a near miss and refine. You want a particular layout? Well then do panels individually and lay them out; talking the model into a specific pattern is harder and worse.

Oregon and Vermont, yeah, that tracks.

Colorado and New Mexico: “In this weather? It’s your funeral.”

I’ve gotta be one of six people on Earth who learned about it from Clerks: The Animated series.

Your king!

Fairly relevant video from Your Dinosaurs Are Wrong: Air Hulks.