you’re still operating on the 2014 patch, it’s 2024

currently it’s a loud and powerful minority that may pull us into civil war.

like it’s not that hard. The US is not some special case when it comes to nation-states.

When the murder monkey hate spiral gets going, it keeps on murdering and hating.

if you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

anyone who doesn’t expect a regime of brutal martial law to come out of a Trump administration is fooling themselves.

these people have already shown they don’t care about law and order to institute their belief system on the rest of us.

what’s going to stop them? congress? they’ll kick out the Democrats because law and order mean nothing to them in their pursuit of power at any costs.

a full scale state-by-state civil war is increasingly likely.

you’re simplifying a complex situation

the ‘right wing’ believes climate change is a hoax. you’re struggling with a failed conception of ‘both sides’ politics. please receive a plot update.

acting like going through post history is discourse, like this, should merit a sitewide ban for 36 hours

As one of said assholes, the biggest problem I have with Lemmy is that it’s stuck trying to be both the Old Internet in which directness was prized and encouraged no matter how acerbic, and Comfort Internet for nonpartisans.

When these two crowds mix there’s going to be discomfort.

And freedom from participation in politics is hiding in privilege to some very real extent, so in some ways I don’t know how to be sympathetic to your plight.

But all politics is ragebait, isn’t it? I’ve come back to this general feeling that we need more rage, not less.

The doctrinal conflicts on the Internet are yet to be resolved. We still have the disaffected rightwing types who haven’t really had it sink in yet that they failed and their loser is and was always a loser. We still have moderate idiots who think that ‘both sides’ need to curtail their extremists.

It’s an irony that one of the Left’s strengths is dogmatism, because I do think there’s dogmatic leftists here that I find insufferable. I didn’t used to dislike male feminists as much as I do now, but let women represent women’s issues.

In the meanwhile, the leftist dogma of No Platforming Stupid Rightwing Shit needs to be more formidably advanced.

this means that if Unity sends you a bill, you don’t have to pay it, and if they take you to court, you prove that you’re acting within the terms of the license you agreed to, which keeps your lawyer fees to a manageable level because you already have all the documents you need: the contract and your source code.

I mean right? IANAL.

We can do both but the existence of one old lucid person doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be avoiding 65 year olds holding onto power. They’re demonstrably worse at politics: you can tell because a reality tv boomer bumble is dividing our country and we’re in a frequently hot civil war with an actual insurgency targeting power plants.

All of these equivocators about the issue seem to fail to understand what has actually happened with mass boomer dementia. That needs to change. Learn the party line: 65 or over, no more governing.

This kind of idpol idiocy is dogmatic. It’s not ableist to keep babies from holding office and old people degenerate into babies. It’s not hard to understand.

This is overthinking things. Old people do a bad job, this is obvious if you look at the last seven years of politics. Don’t muddle the issue so we can fix one goddamn thing.

You’re overthinking things. People over 65 are experiencing physical and mental deterioration and should not hold office. That’s the end of the conversation, stop muddling the issue.

Too many supposedly autistic traits are present in neurotypical people. In my study of autism I’ve seen a lot of autistic chauvinism and I’m finding myself viscerally opposed to smug celebration of the challenges autism poses for the people who suffer from it.

Put bluntly, autism doesn’t prevent autistic people from falling into line and propagating “civilized” dysfunction. I enjoy the quotes this article puts around “civilized” from the standpoint of delegitimizing social approval as anything but a convenient and easily misused fiction, but not if it is used as a prop for autists to feel as if they are in any way superior.

Pride in neurodiversity is one thing, but autistic chauvinism is dangerous.

Traits which are adaptive in some contexts are maladaptive in others. Traits which when paired with other traits are sometimes more adaptive than they are by themselves.

Traits which cause interpersonal conflict are traits which cause interpersonal conflict.

is very fascist in of itself.

No. It’s not fascist to have a firm and authoritative opinion. It is, perhaps, violent and authoritarian in outlook, but conservatives have just tolerated if not endorsed an insurrection under false pretenses and those conservatives have yet to kill the traitor responsible for it, so contemplation of violence is justified because this ‘cold civil war’ as Vivek called it is not going to end with that boomer criminal in power ever again.

Pence was on a pulpit, and he condemned Trump to the court system from it.

you tell yourself a pretty story to make you feel better

Take responsibility for yourself.

I don’t think I shall commit to the insane proposition that humans use logic, rationality, and data to make decisions and inform their behaviors when climate change is currently killing the planet’s ecosystems off. To some extent I think you’ve got a high bar to clear for that proposition to be accepted!

Jokes or half-jokes aside, it’s not a new observation that people rationalize their politics after having decided what it is they feel. I’ve seen too much consensus reality with completely reasonable paragraph after paragraph to take reason all that seriously.

But I do believe that people are ‘reasonable’ in the way that you say: we don’t go around doing things just because (and to the extent that we do, it’s a good thing!). It’s when a group of people gather around a list of reasons that become an ideology that I start to get twitchy.

Feminism is a great movement but men who apply it as an ideology have missed something fundamental about the basis for reason in the expression of emotion.

I have explicitly told you I don’t care if I come off as unreasonable, so what’s your problem?