That’s fine, I’m making a joke about how men are neurotic about things I would never consider. That it is believable that a number of men find planting jalapenos borderline feminine is what is funny.

Learned a new thing men are insecure about.

I see my magnet beam has been making waves today.

This is actually pretty consistent with the party.

Oh my, how foolish of me. Of course of course, they didn’t all publicly concede and therefore the party isn’t a liberal party complicit in fascism intentionally, it just happens to be a liberal party complicit in fascism because of a few bad apples. I see now, I should totally trust the liberal party complicit in fascism because if I do, we might be able to cull those bad apples one day, promey.

I know what voting is. Maybe you shouldn’t make a habit of assuming people are just stupid if you don’t understand what they’re saying.

Hm, almost like that was the plan the whole time. They can say they tried and aren’t as nasty as those Republicans (WHO ARE NOT DEMOCRATS) though right? Democrats fully support fascist policies y’all, they’re hoping this admin collapses and affords them a reputation that enables those policies with greater public support.

Damn, I wonder if anyone else has noticed this. 😳

Wow, they really are just gonna make you kill them eh, for like, no good reason.

That isn’t the only instance I’ve engaged with, but yes I’ve found that larger and more generalized ones have more liberals. There is a particularly obnoxious form of liberal discourse that I’ve found consistent across them too. Liberals on Lemmy think they’re radical just for finding the loud fascism distasteful, and get very upset if you suggest that they aren’t radical enough. It’s less of the pompous fixation on hypocrisy you’d find on Reddit and more outraged entitlement to the desire for change.

My Lemmy experience so far ^

It has been awfully exciting.

Did you seriously not read my explanation and then called it disingenuous? That’s in there.

My guy, you’re the anti-intellectual person here. I’ve been nice and here you are getting to extreme levels of arrogance.

Could you tell us all how you learned about what these words mean? Have you gone to university for it? Are there any professional educators you follow that offer free courses or lessons? Could you name any books you’ve learned from? You mentioned looking it up earlier, where?

Compadre, I don’t know how you could think someone would spend that much time trying to explain something to you and be completely faking.

Yes, that is what it is. It is not my definition, it’s how the people who study these topics professionally use the terms. You can take your time to live with it.

Okay, what you’re misunderstanding is that what a political or social philosophy is differs from how it is colloquially referred to. It does not mean, “a person who values people” and if you knew the history of this brutal system you’d see just how insidious such an assertion is. Yes, “liberal” is an abused term in NA as it benefits liberalism (yes, capitalism is liberalism and vice versa) through the occlusion of any alternative way to understand the world. When they say that liberals are radical socialists, they are purposefully misrepresenting what socialism and social justice is. They are not talking about liberalism when they use it that way. Liberalism is fundamentally an individualist way to understand the world that emerged through the processes of European imperialism and settler-colonialism after the sixteenth century (but we really consider it recognizable once they start talking about republics and individual liberties at the turn of the nineteenth century. You’ll see why in a moment). Private property is at the center of its way of organizing and the value of individual human bodies (not beings) is built not despite of that but to facilitate it. Racism, sexism, and heteronormativity are all systemic constructions that emerged to devalue human bodies relative to their position in the hierarchy and consequently the form of exploitation they experienced in the service of white-settler-colonial reproduction. (i.e. Slavery preexisted chattel slavery and racialization. Chattel slavery was made possible through the naturalization of an othered group as deserving of generational forced labour, and so racialization emerged as a means of rationalizing that violence).

“Capitalism” refers to a social order wherein capital is the primary organizing principle in society, which is to say individual pursuit of capital. It is described economically by its imperatives of profit maximization and infinite growth, both hallmarks of colonial perceptions of land and bodies as commodities. It is the economic system that settler-colonial countries grew into because it is already consistent with how they viewed the world.

Liberalism’s appropriation of “progress” and civil rights (“equality”) is how this social order effectively responded to challenge of the hierarchy. The narrative that people “earn” their rights through civil disobedience presupposes that what we imagine to be rights is in fact an absolute truth that we either restrict or permit access to. Conveniently, those rights are legally constructed in terms of pursuit of capital and private property as a metric of human fulfillment. The black Civil Rights movements of the mid-twentieth century is imagined to end when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1968, which intentionally secures the state’s authority over the determination of inequality and redirects challenges to racism into the legal framework of the state. When Black Liberationist militant groups persisted, you get the War on Drugs and the Prison Industrial Complex (which is itself enabled through the legal end of slavery that still permitted forced labour of prisoners). There are many other examples of how this works, but slavery and racism tend to be very clear demonstrations. Message me if you want a reading list.

What you have done here is made the understandable mistake of assuming how the words are used is exactly what they mean, and yes language is fluid which is why they push these misuses in the first place. Make no mistake though, these are not distinct ways of organizing society, they are cooperative in their endeavour to reduce the living world to property. When you see this, liberal inaction at climate change is not only comprehensible, but expected.

What exactly do you think liberalism is?

We really have to start talking about the reality that capitalists will never concede or negotiate. The more real this becomes, the more the privleged people will convince themselves that it is too late to change and therefore it is a fight for survival. Settler-colonialism and imperialism are are very good at generating rationalities for brutal violence and genocidal narratives have emerged from far less dire circumstances. You think it’s a coincidence that doomer narratives appeared in the metropole once the effects of climate change became undeniable?

Climate change mitigation is a death threat to capitalism. There is no world where they coexist as a capitalist system will never accept the material constraints of our world and will seek to dominate any alternative in its imperative for infinite growth. Liberals will always choose a dead world over a living one because their entire way of life needs to construct the world as an object to extract from. When they lie and say they want change, they hope that it will buy them enough time for the genocide to be acceptable in metropole.

Yeah, imagine if a signiticant portion of crucial infrastructure was owned by a foreign party eh

baba booey

That was a major motivator behind my switch. If I had to fiddle anyway, might as well use something where the fiddling has more payoff. Also don’t want to whack-a-mole AI surveillance from a company close with the fascist regime.

I’m honestly more concerned with them misrepresenting its ease of use than anything else. I ran into a lot of guides and videos that wanted to make it seem more aporoachable so as to not discourage potential users that significantly downplayed the amount of extra work it would take to use Linux. Bash is typically sidelined if they’re promoting Mint or Zorin for example. I study humanities, but I have a good amount of experience with terminals and so learning a new CLI wasn’t s big deal, but I know that’d be a deal breaker for a lot of new users who would likely feel bamboozled by the insistance that it’s “just like Windows.”