- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Got perm banned from Reddit because I said all Nazis can go kill themselves. Worth it
Win win!
I see this comment a lot on Lemmy and it’s disturbing. I too was perma banned for telling a Nazi to “go to hell”. 10 year old account with no prior bans.
Welcome to the club. 12 year account for me, I told off some mysgonistic redpiller who called another user a slur, I quoted the slur so he couldn’t edit, told him to go fuck himself with a telephone pole, the kind with all the nails from years of posters being posted on it, and then reported him.
Mods banned me for “incivility and using a gendered slur,” took no action on the other user, I appealed it, they acted like pubescent fucksticks, so to keep talking to people I knew in that community I made a new account, then admins perma-IP-banned me for ban evasion.
I’ve been fighting this so long that I’m now instantly shadowbanned across all of youtube, google and reddit every time I make a new account. They’ve gotten very good at silencing users so that their bot-army can simulate human society and adjust our narratives at will. (Yes, google and reddit work together to produce AI bots, they announced it a while back, nobody paid attention.)
“Nazi lives matter”
You can’t say that! How am I supposed to kill them myself?
Yeah, kind of “killing the fun” right?! Lmao
I just said punching. Worth it.
Removed by mod
I like your take, but I still prefer this iteration:
Did they reinvent the onion?
Remember kids, the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi!
Also Grammar nazis
I say we normalize this
“Hi, I’m here to punch Nazis and get and an oil change”
Make everyone declare they have no Nazis before you get into business
Lol. Make a flow chart
- Show up.
- Punch nazis.
- ??? (CREATE SOMETHING NEW)
- Profit!!!
The dairy company Arla would be in trouble if they had to do this :D
Arla Finland has one of the few most prominent nazis in Finland in their board of directors. There was a bit of a scandal because of this about a year or two ago, but Arla’s Finnish daughter company said “we already know, but he has promised not to be a nazi during working hours, and it’s every employee’s personal choice what they do in their free time.” And Finland was okay with that (!!)
Guess if I have bought their products even once after that? 🙃
Well in that case, I suggest you show up and demand they submit their Nazi for punching so you can buy milk from them
I’m here to drink milk and kill nazis… and I’m lactose intolerant. >:(
Gas the nazis?
That’s just inhumane lol.
That’s the point. Humane is for humans. Being a Nazi, means you don’t care about human rights.
I’m joking. :)
I like soy milk and dead nazis :3
Soy is delicious and I don’t know why it’s an insult lol.
Because idiots think that eating foods that contain phytoestrogens like soy turn you into a girly man or some shit. The deterioration of education in the US and social media everywhere have ruined us.
Funniest thing is, the same men who use it as an insult, drink beer (Beer stimulates estrogen production). I’ve never seen anyone eat 500g of soy in one sitting. With pints, it’s a different story, however. Oh, the irony.
God I wish
Can I be a soy boi if I’m female
I’m not exactly an authority on handing out the title, but since I don’t believe in gender roles I say you’re good to go!
Hell yeee
its why gymbros believe, they think they will lose thier muscle mass, testosterone from it.
Free HRT?
More for me. :)
Soy milk in coffee is fire!
Plus I won’t be crop-dusting the whole day if I drink it
I learned it’s really depending on the brand. I have tried a couple different ones, and only really like the taste of one
I am mildly allergic to dairy, so as a kid I had soy milk. I hated that stuff
Try oat milk, at least in coffee. Even people who otherwise have nothing against cow milk tend to say that oat milk is better in coffee than cow milk is. I’ve met only some who think cow milk suits coffee better. In my opinion oat milk is also better in cereals and porridge, but that’s something people often disagree upon :)
I accidentally picked up some Ben and Jerry’s oat milk style and it was delicious. I do prefer the regular but I wouldn’t mind getting the oat kind. Surprisingly to me, the oat milk version had slightly more calories.
The humanities do not tolerate inhumanity
Well said. If they did, they wouldn’t really be humane. Allowing unnecessary suffering is inhumane.
It’s sad, but for studies that don’t result in income for the government, they’re just not interested in funding it. You wanna know about philosophy? Tough shit. We need more people for the fulfillment centers, you better get good at holding in your pee.
I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money. I would need some convincing.
Feel free to comment here your best arguments for it.
Do you want anyone other than priests advising government officials on ethics? Then you want philosophy majors.
Why would a philosophy major would have better ethics than my, for instance?
Ethics are greatly influenced by so many aspects different to whatever career someone chose to study.
And we could cut the middleman just voting and electing people with the same ethical values as me. It would be a piss off democracy if I chose a representantive who campaigned for painting all buses blue because I share that view just for some unelected person coming to say “no that’s not ethical you shall not do that”.
Ethics of a society emerge from the society, not from a few individuals. Every person have a set of values and in democracies we chose what are the government positions on those values by voting. I think moral lobbing by a few selected individuals would be bad, no matter if priest of philosophy majors.
Philosophy is the science of thinking.
You are already doing it on an amateur level. Imagine what a professional would be capable of.
I only consider science those fields that can describe nature and assert this depiction of nature vie repeatable experiments. Thus I don’t agree on philosophy being a science.
I algo don’t agree that a professional would have better morals than me. Due the personal nature of what morality is.
Imagine I say my morals are the best, how is any professional philosopher to prove me wrong? It’s not possible. But if I say that “climate change is not real” a lot of climate scientist could show me evidence and offer me a set of experiments to undoubtedly prove me wrong.
I think of philosophy as a form of literature.
What we now call science developed directly out of philosophy. You don’t get to have science without it.
And the bible used to be considered an explanation on the origins of earth and the human being.
Luckily as time goes on humanity have been able to understand nature in better ways than we used to.
Applied ethics is not ‘what feels like it would be the most correct thing to do?’, it’s writing professional codes of conduct, establishing criteria for who should be allowed to get an organ transplant, who should be considered for parole, what scientific experiments should be allowed to happen, if I listed everything affected by the study of ethics I’d be here all day.
I don’t want a random schmuck who’s never thought about any of this for more than 5 minutes writing any of that, and I sure as shit don’t want people voting on it. That’s how you end up with abortion bans.
I’m pretty sure a lot of professional philosophers would agree on abortion bans, while a schmuck like myself agree on “mothers choice”… So…
You’re pretty sure based on what? Even self-proclaimed pro-life philosophers admit their position is rare. Ethics itself easily argues in favor of abortion but not against it, which is one reason it’s available in virtually every secular state.
You are starting from your conclusion (philosophy isn’t worth funding) and working backwards to make that fit any new evidence presented to you.
Not really. I’m just presenting arguments I have always had about philosophy not being a science.
Even if rare, not a single philosopher could make an experiment or present me a scientific theory that would prove that abortion is right or wrong. So the opinion of a single philosopher is as good as any other, and as good as mine for this matter.
Most modern philosophers are left wing, so yes, most philosophers would agree that left-wing morals are right, and that would present an opportunity for left-wing people to say that global morality should be decided by philosophers. I’m left wing myself but I’m against tricks and lies, even if they “benefit the cause”. And even if considering philosophers the moral light of our society would benefit me (as I mainly agree on most modern philosophers views) I personally consider it to be a false statement.
The not funding thing is on the air, yet. I’m just convinced is not a science, is more like literature and other forms of personal expression. And for me the argument would be founding all equally or none. And of course I don’t agree on giving any philosopher a position of authority on morals “just” for being a philosopher in the same way I would give a scientist an authority position in science just for being a scientist (once again, because the whole thing of science is that it’s subjected to experiments and falsifiability.
I don’t even want to diss philosophers. I enjoy reading philosophy a lot. But just as I enjoy reading any other kind of literature. I have respect for Liu Cixin (for instance) but I wouldn’t give him an special position in telling people what to do just because he writes good books that make you think.
humanity is a contract not a gift
Funny how indi got me into science
What if they cut the funding so that people spend their time punching other people?
To me, it seems like a Luke and the emperor scene. They want the hate.
Humanities don’t need funding for expensive laboratories. What’s holding back people from making their own college?
Removed by mod
My point is not that fascism is just hate. I am sure you understood it though because you made your position clear.
Still I am intrigued to read more about your theories. That STEM and humanities meetup or the complex philosophical system that I don’t understand, could you give me a hint on where to start digging?
Removed by mod
Thanks a lot. By chance, do you know a lemmy channel where content in that area is posted?
Removed by mod
Exactly.
I will look into that Nietzsche though.
Almost funny that you suggest him while he was instrumentalized by the fascists as a fascist.
It’s still strange that you stress punching nazis while you have a deeper understanding of their mentality. Don’t people fall back to group strength when they feel vulnerable themselves? Punching Nazis will confirm that vulnerability.
Removed by mod
Wow the arrogance and gatekeeping on you
Removed by mod
Humanities don’t need funding for expensive laboratories
i suppose so as long as all your humanities knowledge is already solved with no need to travel to new places, study new locations, or talk to new people
According to wikipedia, humanities neither include archeology nor sociology:
The humanities include the academic study of philosophy, religion, history, language arts (literature, writing, oratory, rhetoric, poetry, etc.), the performing arts (theater, music, dance, etc.), and the visual arts (painting, sculpture, photography, filmmaking, etc.)
There is no need to travel. The people who research are either there or can be reached via internet.
I mean sure sociology may not be classified as a humanities but archeology clearly is: “include the academic study of history” And sure maybe philosophers don’t need to travel but what do you do when you’re a historian and you need to consult historical records in another country? You are listing"the study of the performing art" how do you think people are studying these without going to the representations? And i may be biased because it’s what i am currently studying but how are we supposed to study geography without travelling???
Geography is not in the list and archeology is not history.
If the college is created in a city then there are performances to visit.
History records have to be limited to scans for the first years.
In general, research can be limited to what is possible. The important part is the freedom of mind, not the freedom of resources.
the pama-nyungan language family is indigenous to Australia and all the languages in that umbrella are either endangered or extrinct already.
pick one:
a) it is already safely and thoroughly catalogued or reachable via the Internet
b) there’s already enough embedded researchers in indigenous Australian communities to study these endangered languages
c) it’s not humanities for some reason
d) probably should spend some money getting more students and professors out there to study it
It’s difficult to not get snarky. You obviously have studied but you argue against my position that humanities with limited funding is possible with the demand that a new university must be able to fund nieche topics. How is that necessary?
because a humanities without “niche topics” is going to cover a very limited subject matter, and in particular, a very certain bias of subject matter! if we design humanities with cost-savings in mind, this is the most inexpensive and readily available culture, language, history: the mainstream, the corporate owned, the majority opinion. funding in humanities expands the horizons and the populace that humanities covers, and without diversity, humanities is not worth teaching
You are arguing about the curriculum of a newly established college as if it were the research focus of the entire humanities.
Diversity doesn’t come from exotic trips but the matetial you cover and the way it is taught and debated. All classic texts are freely available. For centuries that was enough.
There can be trips and such once money is available. For that you need some alumni to get donations. They will not be there if you don’t start teaching which is, for humanities, possible with a minimal budget.
