AcidicBasicGlitch

Originally the discussion was about politics always being brought up on lemmy for all topics even when it's not relevant to the topic. I said that it's not necessarily that people want to bring it up, but it's hard to talk about most things without bringing it up bc it's become so invasive in so many things.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but it seemed like you were arguing it's not actually invasive it's just propaganda making it seem invasive, no?

So I was explaining how it actually has been very invasive for me in response to the statement about it being propaganda.

I mean, literally it feels like it's overtaken my entire life, not just online. Everything.

I was kind of into politics before, but never to this extent, even during Trump's first term bc it's just fucked up everything for me.

My job, my plans for the future, my child's future, my family that are retired and dependent on social security and Mediciad, my friends that have had health issues.

It's not propaganda. It's literally just fucked me over, and ignoring it would just be like closing my eyes, sticking my fingers in my ears and pretending reality isn't real.

If that's not the case for you, I understand and kind of envy you, but I promise its the reality for a lot of people right now

Yeah I don't trust this guy. He's got no moral backbone or real ideology other than a desire for power. I seem to remember him being very vocal against Trump at points, then backing away from criticisms at important times during Trump's first term. Putting a D next to his name now definitely doesn't make me trust him. Even fucking Trump would have stuck with being a Democrat if he thought it would have made him rich and powerful.

If Walsh actually wanted to help this country he'd run as a Republican, but be vocal against Trump. Or better yet, just remain an independent. This country needs to start electing 3rd party candidates, especially with name recognition on his side, he might have a decent chance with the positions he's taking.

We don't need more people like Fetterman weaponizing the title of Democrat to keep putting a "bipartisan" spin on Republican policy, and move the party more towards the right.

If that's where the Democrats really believe we should be headed then yeah now is the time (before we get any closer to midterms) to decisively say we're going to need a new party for left candidates.

2019 viewpoints of Walsh

No Republican with any common sense or shred of decency would have this take: 2012 Republican Joe Walsh: abortions to save mother's life never necessary

People can change, and I applaud him if he has genuinely changed,... but we also need to stop pretending like an older conservative with name recognition, is somehow the best way forward for the party.

There are younger progressive candidates who actually have the drive to make this country better than it was in the first place, instead of just returning us back to normal, only to keep compromising, and losing the little ground we managed to get back over and over again.

I mean, don't you think it's at least in part bc politics have invaded just about every aspect of science and tech?

Like I work in research, and over the last 5 months everything has changed. And it's still constantly changing.

I wish it didn't have to be so political, but a lot of people feel like it's not so much a choice to talk about politics. How do you talk about science/tech/healthcare without mentioning very abrupt and invasive policies? Often, I learn about things that will have an impact on my job here before I hear anything from my employer. It's kind of insane.

I'm definitely not looking for a centrist view, in fact kind of the opposite. Other than bans on bigotry/hate speech, I really don't want to be boxed into a singular way of thinking.

I don't mind if I end up interacting with or hearing views from people who are more centrist or radical, as long as there isn't an all or nothing/hive mind kind of way of thinking about those POVs.

I am definitely more left, I wouldn't call myself a radical, but if I talked to someone who identified as a moderate, they might consider my opinions far left compared to their own POV, whereas somebody who is extreme left might consider me left of center.

I understand there are some people who truly have all or nothing beliefs, but I am also suspicious that movements on the left are often hijacked by bad actors in order to keep people as divided as possible.

Even the idea of a "tankie" as it's used online, seems like it's often just meant to further divide the left during a time when extremists on the far right are trying to keep people divided and distracted in order to maintain the power and control they have achieved.

It's almost like union busting tactics being used against political beliefs instead of labor. As long as people have a core set of values they agree on regarding human rights and liberty, I feel like it's in our best interest to unite against extremists on the far right, even if we don't always agree 100% on everything else.

I may be overthinking the specific instance thing, and I think somebody already answered this, but I guess originally I was thinking, if I joined an instance with say a focus on technology, would I still be able to create a community with a political focus, or would I need to join an instance with a focus on politics in order to do that?

If I did need to join an instance focused on politics, would I then be 100% constrained by political beliefs of that instance to fit a narrative? Like if I felt there was evidence that justified a criticism of someone that's normally placed on a pedestal, would I be free to say that.

It seems like most instances would allow political communities even if the focus of the instance isn't political, so probably a moot point anyway.

I'm not really looking for any one specific perspective, I just don't want to help strengthen an echo chamber whether it's spreading disinformation, edge lords saying shitty things to make some kind of Fred Phelps like point about free speech, or just set on ignoring valid information in order to keep pushing an agenda regardless of facts

What are the worst instances?

I feel like a "good balance" inherently means accepting that you will probably see some things you don't agree with or support, but you can also present your own case for why you don't agree without attacking the person who posted it, or just keep scrolling past that to something else.

A bad balance would be just imbalance where everyone in a community is trying to push one single opinion/agenda, and if anything contradicts that opinion, even if it's well supported by evidence, it results in removal of content or a ban.

That seems to be the real root of suppression of information. Like if someone is told from the time they join an instance or a community that bigotry/abusive speech isn't allowed, and then they use a bunch of slurs or abusive language, they've violated a rule, and it seems like that really shouldn't surprise anyone that would need to be addressed.

If someone can't present evidence contradicting a popular narrative, or critique an argument, idea, or a public individual without getting banned, that is an issue.

People can disagree with what is said/downvote it/present their own evidence why they disagree/or ignore it and block the person, but if it's not intentionally violating a rule, you shouldn't have a bunch of people reporting it as being a violation just because they don't like it.

"You can't do anything without coming to us first, by going through several other individuals who will then be able to contact some Trump administration appointees who are completely removed from the research you're publishing, but will determine if and where you can publish it or speak publicly about it. Because we hate bureaucracy so much!"

Trying to imagine the kind of person that actually downvotes comments like this... Genuinely curious, what are you even disagreeing with?

This changes nothing, and really shouldn't surprise anyone bc most people just assumed he was, based on his constantly bizarre behavior, from doing a fucking Nazi salute on stage to the micro moments like when he looked like he was glitching/buffering during Trump's inauguration.

Given that the administration pretty successfully managed to gaslight the entire nation after two nazi salutes, that we all saw, I doubt we would even be seeing so many negative headlines about Musk right now if the narrative wasn't intentionally being shifted that way by people in the white house. He went from the untouchable dark force who was running the country, to the guy in the cheese hat that annoyed everyone and who gave himself bladder issues by doing too much ketamine.

Thiel got him to serve as the face of dismantling the federal government, and then pushed him aside once Kratsios was confirmed by the senate. Stealing government data to dump into AI was something they have had planned since Trump's first administration. They just needed a public scapegoat, and Musk was more than willing to take the bait.

That said, have people seriously forgotten that in every headline any accusation is always "alleged" even if it's something like rape or murder?

I haven't read them yet, but I'm hoping to. It seems like he has some books actually focused on religion, but i'm not sure how much it actually comes up in this one.

If it does at all, it doesn't seem like he weaponized Christianity against non Christians. His views on it actually sound pretty interesting

Ellul identified himself as a Christian anarchist. Ellul explained his view in this way: "By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence." And, "... Jesus was not only a socialist but an anarchist – and I want to stress here that I regard anarchism as the fullest and most serious form of socialism." For him, this meant that nation-states as the primary sources of violence in the modern era, should neither be praised nor feared, but continually questioned and challenged.