I’m sorry that you don’t have a firm grasp on the interplay of social zeitgeist, nazis operating in the open with disingenous remarks like yours

Oh no I’m well aware of what you’re referring to. I just don’t find it relevant right now. I think you in your own way are unaware of the way that the online discourse on the left reacts to this. I’ve seen people who argue correctly that, yes, imperialism and neo-colonialism do in fact exist get smeared as anti-semites for some reason. Any reference to some global system of power with a powerful group of people at the top is smeared as “Nazi” because of a tenuous resemblance to Nazi conspiracy theories.

It’s obvious the media use pearl clutching about moral issues as away to counter real criticism. I mean, OP is literally regurgitating a CNN talking point. See the opening of this article: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/16/business/elon-musk-george-soros/index.html

And honestly, that’s a way more serious problem to me. I think the people who are actually complicit in violence should not be able to claim the moral high ground. That’s a dangerous thing.

Listen, if a Nazi is talking shit, don’t fucking pick up their shit talking because it jives with your own. Walk away. Wait. Bring it out later after the Nazis are gone and then you wont’ be tarred with the same nazi brush.

Your brush is a pretty broad brush at this point. And that’s why no one is scared of it.

But really? I’m going to bookmark this post, wait for two weeks or so when the issue is no longer relevant, and then remember to create a new post about it? No one does that. And even if I did, you would still be responding the same way, but you would give me different reasons.

This “associated by context” rule you have is really nuts. Here’s a good example. Look at Israel and all the atrocities they commit against Palestinians. Obv there are Nazis who hate Israel for different reasons. But should I silence my criticism of Israel at a prime moment just because there are Nazis in the room? Why should I silence myself when the US government already does so much to silence BDS supporters against their rights?

You make it seem like my point of discussion is some big emergency that has to be handled carefully, with the correct equipment, and following the correct prodedures and protocol. Why? What’s the harm if I make my point? Does the reich come back? I’m genuinely curious. You realize that when real Nazis were brigading Lemmy I was the one who traced them back to their hive and exposed them right?

I really don’t care to continue this conversation - for the second time. I won’t tell you a third.

Ok well no one is forcing you to stay here. So if you keep participating, it seems like you do care actually. I told you you could leave, remember? I said

If it’s one you do not want to have, then the kind thing would have been to drop it and move on

So for the second time, you can drop it if you want.
I won’t tell you a third 😡😡😡
Haha, I’m kidding. I will tell you as many times as you like. I’m generous like that.

Let me break this down simply because this seems to be tricky for you. I’ll be patient because maybe English is not your first language, and there could be some misunderstanding there.

Look back to my first comment, “How does calling a billionaire a villain make you a nazi?”
Notice the ‘you’ in that sentence. In English, this is called the ‘generic you.’ It doesn’t mean I’m referring to you specifically dax. It means I am referring to any generic person, not anyone in particular. To suggest that this question does not pertain to the generic person but solely applies to Elon Musk and has no broader application, would be a grammatical butchering of my sentence. That interpretation of my message would be an objectively incorrect one.

So one of two things happened. You either misinterpreted the question originally and therefore began participating in a discussion that you actually had no interest in, or perhaps you always understood the question. Either way, we should be crystal clear on what my comment meant, and this is either a discussion you want to have or it’s one you do not want to have. If it’s one you do not want to have, then the kind thing would have been to drop it and move on instead of stringing me along and imposing meaning on my words that isn’t there.

It’s rude to suggest I’m not allowed a certain line of discussion. It’s an open platform, and I’m following the rules, and you are not a mod.

Moving on, since you’re adding more to the discussion:

I’ve laid out a number of ways you can easily criticize Soros. It’s easy: literally all billionaires are bastards. But say that appropos of nothing, not within the context of one alt-right nazifucker saying it publicly

But by extension you are calling George Soros a bastard in the same context. Nevermind that, my issue goes beyond just this one twitter thread. My issue is that people like to make George Soros immune from criticism. If you haven’t noticed this, I don’t know where you’ve been. Like, even if we’re talking about the Elon Musk tweets, if he were talking about another jewish billionaire like Mark Zuckerburg, would anyone bat an eye? What about the Koch brothers? I doubt it. And that’s why I think the issue people had with what Elon said is not even about him, it’s about George Soros.

This is a good observation actually. Let’s formalize this logic with induction rules:
Anyone who says something bad about George Soros -> Nazi
A billionaire says something bad about a jewish billionaire -> Not always a bad thing, depends on context

So in this case, observably the first rule is what people are applying to Elon Musk here. I have an issue with such a rule existing because it makes no sense. I guess basically I don’t have a problem with people labeling Elon Musk a nazi, I care about the steps they take to get there, because these steps could be used on other people irrationally like you have just tried to do to me. So yes, now is the correct time and context to argue this because now is the time where I see this irrational logic on display, and I will not let it go unpunished.

Takes so long for people to see my point.

You are, and there’s a “new post” button at the top

Yeah but the comment feature makes it easy to have related discussion in one place.

It’s not a non sequitor. I assumed by the post, you meant that calling George Soros a villain makes you look like a Nazi, regardless of who you are. That’s why Elon Musk looks like a Nazi. This assumption was proven correct in your response.

So by now, the meaning behind my question is beyond being clearly established, so why do you insist on these semantic games instead of sticking to the chain of discussion?

So let’s continue. I thought I made a salient point earlier. If your standard is consistent, why are people who have similar animosity towards other jewish billionaires like the Koch brothers and Mark Zuckerburg not given the same treatment? Why are they not labelled antisemitic?

What, so I’m not allowed to start the discussion that I want to have even if it’s related to the original topic?

Edit: By the way, there’s a difference between providing context and imposing meaning that isn’t there.

The thing is, I’m not the one singling George Soros out. Leftists love to shit on billionaires in the most extreme displays, saying “eat the rich” and bringing guillotines to protests, etc. Could care less about that; I don’t think people who rig our economy and society deserve to feel safe. But these same people seem to take exception when anyone mentions Soros.

I won’t claim to understand people’s motives, but a lot of leftist “anti-capitalist” organizations are funded by George Soros. So that may be part of the reason. I doubt the credentials of anyone who calls themselves anti-capitalist when they start picking and choosing which billionaires are okay to criticize.

But I can prove that such leftists do not make exception for George Soros out of a concern for anti-semitism. Where is the pearl clutching when people shit on Mark Zuckerburg? What about the Koch brothers? Leftists love to rant about the Koch brothers, is that antisemitic?

No, I think the truth is that leftists like to defend George Soros because they agree with the nature of the political projects he funds. But it’s ok to make the Koch brothers villains because the nature of their investment in politics is right-wing. Give me a break.

Yeah but our point of contention had nothing to do with Elon Musk

I’ve seen a few interesting ones over the years. A couple of apps: Lemmur and Jerboa. LemmyBB. But there was also a plain text-based one I thought I saw a long time ago that I can’t find again.

The real problem is that html is basically just rectangles nested within rectangles.

So it’s disingenuous to interpret a statement literally when they are clearly not speaking figuratively? Gotcha

Edit: If it’s my fault for misinterpreting the statement incorrectly, would @dax@dax@beehaw.org chime in and affirm the negative of my misinterpretation? Just say that you think calling George Soros a villain does not in fact sound antisemitic without additional context, thanks. If they can do that, it would put the argument to rest. Otherwise, alayza, you would definitively be the disingenuous one.

No you’re the one being disingenuous. I asked a question, “How does calling a billionaire a villain make you a nazi?” It’s pretty straightforward. If calling George Soros a villain doesn’t make you a nazi, but there’s more context in the case of Elon Musk, that would have been a more insightful response to my question that could have been the start of a different discussion.

But that’s not what @dax@beehaw.org said. Dax said “you don’t think calling a successful jewish guy a villain sounds like antisemitic-nazi nonsense?” This is an implicit claim that any person, not just Musk, who has an unfavorable view of any successful jewish person is antisemitic. That’s the claim I’m responding to and it has nothing about Musk!

So either you get that now and your question was answered, or you’re arguing in bad faith

My question didn’t even mention Musk. I asked how in general the action of calling a billionaire a villain makes someone a Nazi. Believe it or not, Musk is irrelevant, because he is not the only person who rightfully calls out Soros and gets accused for antisemitism. There are a lot of random nobodies who don’t have billions of dollars who get called antisemitic just because they hate when already rich and powerful people use their wealth and power to further influence politics at home and abroad. See https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/George_Soros

Case in point: I am not anywhere close to the wealth of George Soros, yet you call me a Nazi enabler for (justly) calling him a villain. Who is really in bad faith here?

No I don’t. I can’t name a billionaire who doesn’t seem like a villain to me. Why would I make an exception for jewish billionaires? Sounds kind of racist.

How does calling a billionaire a villain make you a nazi? Like seriously, help me understand it.

At least Belarus is right next door. NATO has had nukes in Turkey since the cold war. And how do you justify putting nukes across the ocean on the doorstep of your declared adversaries and expecting them to put up with that?

They are home. Ukraine is currently occupying Russian territory in Zaporozhye, Kherson, and Donetsk oblasts. This war can stop when they leave.

It has just learned that it is important to stay hydrated

Well, ChatGPT is also racist as your video points out, so it makes perfect sense

[removed]

I think it’s more the way the youtube algorithm works. It sorts “top comments” by default, seemingly even removing comments if they don’t get enough likes to reach a threshold. I’ve had an issue before where a video shows no comments even when it says there are 3 comments. I switch to “new” and the three comments show up

Edit: But I see what you are saying, the algorithm definitely plays into that attention seeking mentality

I always observe how in youtube comments nothing close to an original thought surfaces. Everyone always has the same generic reaction to things. Makes me feel very solipsistic

I wonder if they include Biden’s bombing of Nord Stream

That’s the third one this week!

Died with covid or of covid?

Communists in the west love big pharma

Why? IP is a bankrupt concept. Instead of protecting IP on behalf of artists, we should abolish IP for AI companies. Enforce open sourcing of AI models that use other people’s data, nationalize big tech, so on

If you look into this decision, it’s more that China is worried about deepfakes, which is a very real concern.

In recent years, deep synthesis technology has developed rapidly. While serving user needs and improving user experience, it has also been used by some unscrupulous people to produce, copy, publish, and disseminate illegal and harmful information, to slander and belittle others’ reputation and honor, and to counterfeit others’ identities. Committing fraud, etc., affects the order of communication and social order, damages the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and endangers national security and social stability.

This is likely easy to enforce at the model level, if you have a model that generates lifelike impressions of real people. Enforcing it per image would be impossible I think.

But there are people celebrating this like it’s some luddite attempt of China to hold back technological progress for the narrow aim of protecting IP. Any “communist” that is disposed this way, read the quote above a few more times. When the sewing machine was invented, did we hold back the sewing machine so that more tailors could keep their jobs? Why should it be any different for “artists”? Is the solution to alienation turning back society to the dark age? Or is there already a theory of revolutionary change that venerates the acceleration of revolutions in the forces of production? If you hate AI art you are a reactionary.

1. I don’t think you know what spelling means because I didn’t misspell any words
2. he has came from Russia. “has came” is not a proper verb form
3. There’s nothing grammatically incorrect about what I wrote

If you’re going to nitpick me at least be correct yourself

He is already from Russia I believe

I guess we’ll see when more details come out. Given the growing evidence that it was an Ukrainian S-300, why would it be so far off course, and not just that, in the complete opposite direction to the approaching missiles from the east it would be trying to intercept?
And it just so happens to hit a tractor in the middle of empty farmland. It’s almost like Ukraine would have something to gain if article 5 were triggered.

Is there anyone who was rooting for her? I see Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan making fun of her tonight. She seems to be universally disliked.

Boring game. Anything I can do in this game I can do in real life already.

No, the most appropriate would be Zelensky following the Minsk accords and calling off his army and apologising his brothers for attacking and murdering them. Then Russia would have no reason to intervene.

I don’t know much about this situation, but it seems appropriate that the plant should temporarily be shut down, all radioactive materials removed. This would probably leave a lot of people without power though because this plant is one of the biggest in Europe and provides a lot of electricity.

Well where I live there is virtually 0 public transport, why I say “by American standards, which isn’t saying much”

This is the Oakland bay bridge. The lanes only expand to this wide to accommodate more toll booths. Because cars move slower on lanes when they are paying tolls, the tolls will become a bottleneck unless there are more toll lanes than highway lanes. You can see up ahead where the lanes merge back together again.

This is the only direct road connection between Oakland and San Francisco, so of course there will be heavy traffic no matter how much public transport you have. And the bay area has decent public transport by american standards, which isn’t saying much, but many people live close to commuter rail.

I don’t see the problem with this, there are much worse examples of modern car infrastructure imo.

It’s world news, why does there need to be a point?

No. We only know what science is because of philosophy. If that basis for science became science, then the truth of science would have to presuppose itself, a set of ideas that would be true in and of themselves, which is clearly fallacious.

Also, the sciences deal with descriptive reality. They say nothing about how the world should be or how we should act.

That is a psychology wiki article about authoritarian personality, not about authoritarianism.

What most people mean by authoritarianism is a form of government. You are an anarchist right? You would agree the state is just the way the ruling class asserts its position, and that all states have this monopoly of the legitimate use of violence. If that’s what a state is, how can one state have more of a monopoly than another? A monopoly is a monopoly. However you see it, the class in power rules absolutely. No state is more authoritarian or libertarian than any other.

That is correct

It’s a planned feature. Just not one the devs are working on right now.
https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/1985