nekbardrun
the post of the previous commenter was nuanced.
usually it is a good thing, but since the far-right is blatantly nazi, there are some risk with "nuance"
overall, the previous comment seems to be analyzing how this divide is happening.
my only complaint is that the comment doesn't make clear who are the fuckers who are dirving the social divide (spoilers: the right who is nostaligic about the post-war period and want to create a "new" post war period by, well, going full nazi)
As someone said on reddit they don't want a safe space for them.
what they want is to be enabled to shit on everyone else's food and smirk at us while we try to separate their shit from our beans.
It is a power dynamic where they want to force their shit upon us.
they already have their safe space on r/conservative where they go to circle jerk around "the left is bad".
They do get tired from that and there is no new "left is bad" if the entire political spectrum was composed of them.
Far right and conservative hate is a self cannibalizing movement.
Even if they killed all gay, black, hispanic, asian, autistic, disabled and any sort of "the other", then, they would need to find new "others" to start to hate and kill. Their fight is always inward, against the enemy within.
They will proceed to kill white people because either they are not white enough or that they are too white ("ginger" people which should've be considered the "correct type of white" if racism ever made any sense since they are paler than almost any other ethnicity).
So, they need an existing enemy and a platform that enables them to shit on us.
If they ever come to lemmy, the correct path is to ban as soon as they shou their true colors and start to throw shit around.
It only requires a few probing question to know if someone is in good or bad faith.
When the comment goes into 5 or more replies, it is almost always for sure that the conservative answering is in bad faith (only exception is if they clearly show that they are learning something with the discussion and adapting their viewpoints with each new comment)
I ask you to also be careful!
you don't need to feed the trolls to help them see the light.
Treat it like an authoritative (but not authoritarian) parent:
You don't let the kid do whatever inappropriate shit (that is a neglecting parent style), but you do state firmly the rules and give the consequence (authoritative) without making them fear you through spanking or other kinds of abuse (authoritarian).
I agree we should not be authoritarian.
But we should also not be neglectful!
Specific example:
If someone comes saying that trump did a roman salute, the authoritative answer is: "The nazi salute is a roman salute and both are used to promote fascism (link to wikipedia)".
Simply and blunt, yet "non-judgemental" answer
Now if they reply saying shit like how they are actually different, then just call their bullshit off by saying things like: "I see no reason for someone to defend a roman or nazi salute unless that someone is a nazi. I really hope you aren't a nazi, but if you are, know that you're in the wrong. Period."
Then stop any sort of further replies and start reporting if they keep harping on this (it would be similar to the time out that parents do to younger child).
In this thread:
A lot of men who didn't read the article and didn't got the satirical part of the act.
And given the last political polemic, I'm pretty sure these "men" are misrepresenting the article on purpose.
There are a few misconceptions in your comment:
While I do agree that there are other problems like racism and bigotry which existed before capitalism (based on an answer you gave in another comment) and while I do agree these also need to be addressed, I do disagree that capitalism isn't a major source of problems of modernity.
Why?
Because the cornerstone of capitalism is to use money to generate more money in a feedback loop towards (nonexistent) "infinite money" (which is different from feudalism, roman empire or ancient Egypt which all had some sort of market without being capitalist economies).
SInce it is impossible to make infinity money, an inherent part of capitalism are the crises cycles of boom and bust.
It also makes the creation of services as an afterthought (because making money is more important) and it is also tied to the enshitfication we're seeing today.
I think you're calling as "capitalism" a thing that is actually "technological innovation (under capitalism)"
We're all aware of free/open source softwares
We're all aware that it is possible to develop technological innovation outside of capitalist framework (and again: Capitalism = Using money to make more (infinite) money)
almost all of scientific researches advances are because of passion of the researches instead of the greed of capitalism.
Yes... Everyone "needs" money to survive. But I hope you do agree that nobody in the world needs billions of dollars to simply survive.
for God's sake, a lot of people living in "third world" dream of earning 300 dollars a month to survive and consider that making 1000 dollars a month is a small luxury (I'm from brasil and 1000 dollars is around R$ 4000 or R$ 5000 while most people lives with R$3000 or less)
What I'm saying is that, past the required money for surviving and for having a few "luxuries", there is no need for anyone having millions or billions of dollars every month and that it would be possible to keep scientific and technological grow under such conditions because curiosity and desire for changes are part of human nature.
if it was entirely impossible for humans to develop things without being paid before, then nothing around open/free software would exist.
What if I bring treats? Or maybe 5 kg of raw meat? What is the probability that I win?
Sorry, I wasn't aware it was a reference to jaws.
I'll retract my previous comment then.
Thanks for pointing it out :)