Calling anyone who doesn’t oppose free speech MAGA (a straw man or ad hominem fallacy) isn’t serving you. Mere falsehoods do not constitute violations of free speech limitations (eg, true threats, defamation, imminent lawless action). Try respecting logic.
You were directly quoted & added
words are real and have meaning and impact
someone told them they were hurting other people
What impact? Hurting with words means offend. The only credible objection is harm or you’re rejecting free speech for even lesser reasons.
So, point acknowledged as written. This doesn’t bode well with your implication:
Really felt like you attacked a point I didnt make, but surely I’m just an idiot.
Let’s hold people responsible for what they say by violating freedom of speech.
Little Jimmy injured himself trying to fly like Superman, so we must hold those media execs responsible by violating freedom of expression.
Nah, shit argument: mere falsehoods do not incite imminent, unlawful harm. The time to discuss & criticize that speech before acting is unbounded. Any harm is the own doing & responsibility of someone failing to exercise reasonable sense of challenging unsound information & sources.
it’s Corporatism
Corporatism is an ideology and political system of interest representation and policymaking whereby corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, come together and negotiate contracts or policy (collective bargaining) on the basis of their common interests.
Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as “corporations” in modern American vernacular and legal parlance. Instead, the correct term for that theoretical system would be corporatocracy.
Corporatism comes from a cultural disagreement over the basic unit of society.
A major distinction between different political cultures is whether they believe the individual is the basic unit of their society, in which case they are individualistic, or whether corporate groups are the basic unit of their society, in which case they are corporatist.
Labor unions & collective bargaining are corporatist as is fascism. To clear up misunderstandings from history class, definitions of fascism featuring corporate refer to that. Fascists imagined national collective management of corporate groups in a top-down system of state control that they termed totalitarian.
Stumping for socialism? Well, the Soviet Union failed mighty fucking hard. “But that wasn’t true socialism!”
Soviet Union was a failed communist state: a socialist state with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve communism, the pseudoscientifically postulated utopia of a stateless, classless, moneyless, post-scarcity society. Communist ideology is like the Christianity of economics that keeps promising the 2nd coming of Christ: they insist it’ll happen someday inevitably. No possible way Marx was wrong.
Economists often consider capitalism a persuasive definition coined by critics that poorly defines an economic system. Instead, they approach systems from considerations such as resource allocation mechanism & regulatory policies.
Western Europe has more social market economies: mixed economies where private enterprises operate in markets regulated to prioritize fair competition & social welfare. Technically, US has a mixed economy but with a weaker prioritization of social welfare; it’s not pure “capitalism” either.
When people in the US argue for a Western European style of social market economy, I think they’re asking for market regulations that raise the priority of social welfare & labor standards. While more social, that isn’t socialism.
Needs text alternative.
So, the original post was removed by AutoMod for no apparent rule violation, that instigated a repost that got you banned, and the moderators claim it’s not
relevant to your ban
?
It’s too bad we can’t nuke reddit from high orbit & bitchslap their unaccountable moderators to eternity.
I wonder who hurt those idiots as children & made them turn out that way.
That might explain why so many comments in this post on edible packaging didn’t reject the idea as defeating the purpose of packaging & were even suggesting wrapping the packaging in packaging to keep it contaminant-free.
You don’t need to explain your delusion that critics didn’t read your comment.
Get butthurt all you want about others not caring about & disagreeing with your point.
Someone’s lack of sense to question unreliable information is entirely their fault. That’s no justification to violate a fundamental right.
So, you don’t understand straw man fallacy either and felt like letting everyone know.
Accessibility means text: some people can’t read images of text. Text is a better technology for text content: reflowable to varied screen sizes, adaptable to different renderings & sizes for those with dyslexia or vision issues, multimodal (can be read by computer, rendered in braille, etc), searchable & indexable by semantic content. An image of text does none of that.
Nah, your point is worthless.
Here’s a nice picture.
Nope: ed like in the picture.
Another free speech hater. Lemmy loves authority: the boot remark fits.
Only cowards fear words.
The US is still too backward for bidets even when trying to be classy/tacky AF.
There is something to this: MAGA is appropriating revolutionary left-wing tactics, criticism, & rhetorical strategies for right-wing causes. They reformulate Marxist criticism by framing the cultural establishment as run by educated, left-wing elites (from elite universities) rather than the bourgeois. They’re criticizing
They take all these familiar tropes from left-wing revolutionary rhetoric & twist them.
They even appropriate wokism. James Lindsay, who has experience getting absurd hoaxes published in multiple high-profile cultural studies journals, got a hoax that recasts the Communist Manifesto published in a conservative evangelical christian online journal. That revolutionary rhetoric & framing of society fits their rhetoric.
The Woke Right is Woke enough to argue against liberalism in exactly the same pompous and conspiratorial way (literally) Karl Marx argued against his own class enemy. So, if by “Woke” we mean running the Woke operating system and sociopolitical architecture, the Woke Right is clearly Woke.
They considered a lightly modified excerpt from the Communist Manifesto to be a “powerful article” for who they are and what they think
Lindsay also observes that this phenomenon is historically precedented:
Does this mean I’m saying the Woke Right are Communists? No, not at all. Historically, Fascism was a reaction to Communism that adopted the Communist operating system but not Communism or its specific agendas. In fact, they adopted the operating system of Communism specifically to be “anti-Marxist” (according to Mussolini)—just like the Woke Right.
And for those wondering: yes, I totally just summarized the article apparently few on here bothered to read.
When I see a crazy person
That mothefucker is crazy
Ad hominem again: the parent commenter only seems to argue in logical fallacies.
Free speech doesnt mean you can selfishly say anything you feel like.
It pretty much does, actually. I doubt your understanding of free speech.
Expression that merely offends isn’t harm.
The parent comment is all ad hominem & genetic fallacy lacking substance or criticism of the article. Clearly it disapproves of the writer & publication, and it derides irrelevant contingencies about ancestry, provenance, wealth. As for anything of substance about the article itself: nothing.
See how that works? This comment evaluated the substance of the parent comment. I challenge lemmy to do better & try that with the article.
I refer you back to
Everything else you wrote was addressed.
Right: criticism, condemnation.
Those taking ill-advised actions causing actual (not imaginary) harm must bear the consequences of their actions, not anyone else who didn’t make them do it.