deaf_fish

@deaf_fish@lemm.ee

An Embedded Software Engineer who does game dev as a hobby.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

deaf_fish,

No, not everyone that disagrees with me is a secret agent. A good chunk of them are. The rest are the idiots that believe and agree with them.

I’m still waiting for a good argument about how no voting or voting 3rd party gets better outcomes.

Maybe I’m the idiot for thinking there might be a good argument for it. Who knows?

deaf_fish,

Voting is a negotiation? Since when? Voting is a privilege that the ruling class can take away from us at any time if they think they can get away with it. Something kind of like what Trump did after the last election. I remember Jan 6th.

It’s always been a choice between a shit cupcake and a poop cookie. The best thing you can do is minimize damages so you can keep trying to organize for 4 more years or at the very least, stay out of the camps.

Also, if you don’t vote or vote 3rd party, they don’t have to think or care about you anymore. Your not a vote they need to get, because your throwing your vote away. Its basic first past the post voting strategy. I don’t like first past the post for this reason.

If you are bot, “foreign spy”, or whatever, your post was good at muddying the water, keep it up, your master will be pleased. If your not, this argument was bad and unconvincing try again. Not even conservative voters are dumb enough to vote 3rd party.

deaf_fish,

And if you always vote for them no matter what they do, then they don’t have to think or care about you anymore, because they know you’ll vote for them regardless.

You got it! That is the shit system in the US.

Oh thank you, I actually am a foreign spy. Do you think you could rate me 5 stars? I really need this job.

Lol, good sense of humor.

I sympathize, it gets depressing. That is why, I don’t blame anyone from no voting or 3rd party voting. I just wish people would do that without justifying it. Not make it out to be this big brained strategy. There are a lot of good meaning ignorant people who will read that stuff and think they are materially improving things by no voting or 3rd party voting. The progressive fight is super hard and a pain in the butt. If you need a rest King/Queen, take it.

The only real way to get change to happen is getting enough people educated and organized to turn the democrat or republican candidate into a 3rd party candidate by numbers, that is the only way they suffer. Until then we have to play their stupid game.

deaf_fish,

To attempt to wake up those people who think Elon is actually God’s gift of mankind.

deaf_fish,

When we are all headed to gas chambers because Trump won, I hope leftist “no voters” and “3rd party voters” can take solace in the fact that they personally didn’t dirty their morals by voting for Biden. Because the last hours of our lives, I will be brutally taking the piss out of you all and loving every moment of it.

deaf_fish, (edited )

Care to give a specific example?

deaf_fish,

I mean, if you can’t find an example that isn’t a fascist going mask off, then your just proving the point.

deaf_fish,

Assuming you’re talking about violence in response to peaceful, if shitty, ideas then you’ve found the ambiguity.

Ok, yeah, this is what I wanted to get to. Otherwise we are just bouncing around vague ideas and I really didn’t see an end to it.

Shitty ideas have consequences. There are several examples in history. Notably the German Nazi party. Which resulted in a lot of violence, death, and torture of innocent people. Not to mention a war. And it all started from a fascist ideology, just words.

At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.

Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.

deaf_fish,

Ok, so let me get this strait. After Hitler gets his political power by creating Jews as a common enemy. By convincing most German people he will save them. But before the holocaust start happening. Your personally going to step up to Hitler and say “Hey, have you considered not using or violence? You should not use violence because it is bad”. And then Hitler will slap his forehead in disbelief that he forgot that he could just not be violent?

I am not convinced this would do anything. I think you will get disappeared, but hey, if Hitler 2 comes up, feel free to try.

deaf_fish,

This depends, is the religious school private or public? If the religious school is private, is the religious belief publicly fascist in nature?

If the school was public then it is going against the law. The government has a monopoly on violence and will use the violence to uphold the law. So in this case, the police would be doing the bashing.

If it is private and not spreading harmful ideas, then it is fine.

deaf_fish,

I am kinda confused while reading your post. It sounds like we agree. I am not by nature a violent person. In fact, I would rather not punch anyone. The problem is that history shows clear a progression when it comes to fascists. Their ideas spread like a virus and people who have not been educated about it are easily convinced, even though there is a bunch of history and philosophical evidence that bad outcomes will happen. Once they gain power, that is it.

As I am talking with the OP, it seems like they think that violence is never necessary. I think this is incorrect. I think you agree with me on that point at least.

I think the punching should only happen if they have a big audience or if they are open and loud about it. Obviously try to educate them first. But at the end of the day, if they are just a normal person that doesn’t talk about their politics, and they salute a picture of Hitler before they go to bed. I am fine with that. They don’t need to be punched, they can enjoy society as long as they stay quite about it.

The problem isn’t the people, the problem is the idea. The people are fine as long as they don’t spread the idea.

deaf_fish,

Ohh, so we are presupposing a tolerant society? Then yeah, that would work. But to an extent that is an impossibly. Somehow the racists and fascists would have to wake up tomorrow no longer being those things and then no new person could become those things. Not sure how that would happen without violence of some kind. So you have a chicken and egg problem.

deaf_fish,

Yeah, this makes sense. Would you feel better about the this: “It’s ok to punch fascists”? Using the common definition for all these terms. I know this is slightly different from what OP was posting about.

deaf_fish,

Fascists want power to hurt people. They think they are making the world a better place by “removing” a “bad” group of people.

When do you start punching these people? If never, they are going to kill and harm a lot of people.

deaf_fish,

Whoa there. It was your hypothetical of a tolerant society. I am just asking questions. Questions which you curiously didn’t answer.

Listen, I will tell you a big difference between me, racists, and fascists. I only use violence if they don’t keep their ideas to themselves. They, on the other hand, they will kill me no matter what I do. Its not the only difference, but it is important one.

I like to say I have no problem if you want to salute a picture of Hitler every night. As long as you keep your ideology to yourself.

Also, it’s not about offense, it’s about outcomes. History shows that really bad stuff (genocide) happens when fascists take power. The bad stuff is also a logical outcome of their ideology, so we will never have a good fascists government or ideology. This has been covered over and over in philosophy, it’s a very well known thing.

Finally, the tolerance and non-violence arguments you are using empowers fascists and racists, not because they believe in those things, but because it is beneficial for a society to believe those things for fascists and racists to take power. Once they have power or while they gain it, it is easy enough for them to direct hate to a target group and get rid of the idea of tolerance and non-violence.

So what I am saying here, is you are making some new friends by posting this stuff. Yay!

deaf_fish,

Hey, I will stop being violent when there is no need to.

Speaking of which, did you want to answer my question about your hypothetical?

What would a tolerant non-violent society do with a bunch of fascists attempting to gain power to do violent activity?

If you have non-violent solution to this, I would happily change my stance.

deaf_fish,

Maybe try a more formal debate setting? I know there are some places like “the crucible” that facilitate that.

I doubt you will find anything on Lemmy unless you start up a highly moderated community. Even then, people can bring questions against the moderators.

Discussion and debate are pretty lawless in nature.

deaf_fish,

This! You can never “win” or get the last word, but you can get the other person to show how bad their arguments are. You just have to trust that others will decide on what is right correctly.

deaf_fish,

T Swift: 1.1 billion

Elon: 197.3 billion

I wonder which one of these people more powerful and has more influence?

deaf_fish, (edited )

I’m not on Lemmy much and have I talked to like five of these guys.

deaf_fish,

This is funny and it makes me feel good. But you know as well as I do, that it doesn’t matter what any religious text says is right or wrong. Fascism and capitalism will take control and health care will be a personal problem.

deaf_fish,

So like a CEO?

deaf_fish,

Okay, let’s say there’s only two parties A and B. In a first pass the post system. These are the only two parties that matter. If a 3rd party C is less popular than A or B, they don’t stand a chance. Also people whos preferences are in order C, B, then A. If they vote for C, they are voting for a candidate that cannot possibly win. They are effectively taking votes away from B giving A a higher chance to win.

This sucks but it is reality.

The only way to get C voted in is for C to become more popular than A or B. There is no amount of voting or not voting that can do this. Only organizing as I have mentioned before.

So to maximize your desired outcomes, you need to vote B so that A has less of a chance to win.

To put this in another way. By not voting or voting for C you are by consequence, increasing the probability your least desirable outcome comes to pass.

Again, this sucks and I wish it weren’t the case.

Now if you personally don’t want to vote, or you want to vote for C. That’s fine. It’s a free country. Please stop trying to make it sound like it’s some grand plan to solve all of the systemic problems we have. Because the outcome of going down this path is that A will have a higher probability of getting into power, and there will be consequences to that.

deaf_fish,

Sorry about necroing this, I needed a break from the socials, but I really wanted to reply to you.

Why do you explain the most obvious argument ever to me?

I don’t know what you know or don’t know. I am happy you are well educated.

The truth however is that there comes a point when the lesser evil becomes evil.

See here is a good point from you which I missed in my original writeup. If the outcomes of both A and B are the same, then you should vote for C. The issue is that this almost never happens. Like we would need to have Trump vs a clone of Trump that is 5 minutes old. The issue with your “evil” argument is that what can be considered evil is very broad. Take this hypothetical:

Both A and B have supported genocide like Biden. A says they love it, they want to do more of it, they want to turn the US of A into the US of Genocide. B says that they regret it and that it was a bad move, and they wont do it again.

In this case, both A and B have supported genocide and are their for are both Evil. Even so, if you vote for C the outcome is that A is more likely to be elected. By your own definition, voting for C is an evil act.

Do you have a conscience? Do you want to make them realize their atrocious actions have consequences?

Are good things good and bad things bad? Yes. I feel like we are aligned in values, we just disagree about how to go about it.

Or will you give them the vote that says I’m still ok with what you do?

As we have discussed most voting is not approval it is picking the lesser of two evils. Most elections have been between a shit sandwich and a poop cupcake. Seems this election will be about the same.

I don’t care about strategies, my votes are only based on my beliefs and who matches them the most.

Ok great, then don’t comment. Your mad at me because you don’t have a strategy but want seem clever and make comments like “And they kept on voting blue and both parties kept on getting more reactionary and moving the center to the right ad infimum…”, and then you say your going to vote 3rd party, witch is against your own interests probably (Maybe your a Trumper). Then you get mad at me for explain basic voting strategy. I’m just trying to understand what happening and trying to help others who might not understand how the system works.

If you want to vote based on feelings and not outcomes, fine, keep it to yourself.

deaf_fish,

the context that lead to the statement being made in the first place.

But I don’t think that context is necessary to agree/disagree with the statement. What context could men’s feelings be more important that women’s safety?

i provided one in the above statement which was a very literal interpretation of that statement, which quite literally interprets the fact that your feelings sometimes provide negative influence to your perceived safety. To use a specific example here, you may have a fear of heights, which leads to you feeling “unsafe” at heights, even though it’s a psychological adaptation that you have causing it. Although in that case it’s pretty well understood to be a psychological adaptation of something, so that’s not a common thing.

Sorry, I was expecting something worded like “I feel less safe up high because I am afraid of heights so how can feelings be less important than safety”, so I didn’t catch your example.

Yeah, I think that someone could interpret it like that. But I feel like you could pretty easily explain that feeling safe and being actually safe are not the same things. Someone who is confused can easily be caught up and someone who is being malicious would have a hard time not looking silly. I feel like this level of confusion would have a pretty low occurrence count. So I feel like this specific confusion would be a reasonable risk.

If you say a statement and someone goes “yeah no i don’t get that”

My issue with this is that depends on the people joining the conversation. Also depends on how malicious they are. Like if someone didn’t know what “safety” meant. You can solve this by copy-pasting the dictionary definition of “safety”, but then then the next person who joins might not understand the concept of feelings, or not understand some of the words in the definition of “safety”. This is a never ending task.

I think a better way is to target a specific audience. You will lose people outside of that target, but that is unavoidable and will happen with any strategy. Hopefully some of them ask questions or for clarifications, so your message can spread to those groups. I think it is important to be as inclusive as you can be. But most people on here (including me) are doing this in their spare time. So it’s not like we have much flexibility to improve things.

That all being said, I think this meme was well targeted and effective. Did we solve the problem, no, that was never possible to begin with. But we did provide nice discussion about it. We let the extremists show off how silly they were. We let confused people ask questions and get answers. We gave the general public a good showing so they can decide what is right and wrong.

bringing it down to something like “safety is more important than feelings” is so inherently vague

In my mind this is as vague as the original post when it comes to the truth of the statement. The only difference is adding genders which doesn’t affect the meaning of the statement.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • everett
  • InstantRegret
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • mdbf
  • cisconetworking
  • kavyap
  • cubers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • megavids
  • ngwrru68w68
  • Durango
  • osvaldo12
  • tacticalgear
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • ethstaker
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •