ZC3rr0r

That was the point he jumped the shark for me. His Twitter takeover, constant placating of the right and efforts to get Trump re-elected had already pushed him from “edgelord memer and shitposter” to “alt-right nutcase”, but the salute immediately jumped him to “irredeemably evil monster”.

Yeah, I’d like to know too. Don’t leave us hanging OP.

Are we actually sure Trump isn’t just an LLM these days? The amount of complete fabrication and nonsense being spewed with such confidence is eerily reminiscent of AI hallucination.

That’s not wrong, that’s working as expected. You didn’t think those companies paid Google to not advertise their business did you?

That’s a stretch. I don’t need to hate someone (including myself) to deem them less attractive or just not my type.

And I honestly think that’s what’s at play here - straight guys are into women and will judge their appearance differently from how they judge the appearance of other men.

Perhaps we don’t collectively look like we dress poorly and barely take care of ourselves to women, as they likely look at other aspects of our physical appearance than we do

Glad I am not the only one who thought of him right away.

I mean, the chiropractor is technically correct. You’ll say goodbye to a lot of things, including IBS.

Or, get this, the poster is a guy who genuinely feels like this.

I can’t deny that I (as a guy) have often wondered what women see in us, because to me the vast majority of men are poorly dressed on top of looking like we don’t take care of ourselves.

It would certainly explain the absurdist hellworld we appear to exist in today, that’s for sure.

Man do I love me some backhanded compliments like this one.

Now that brings back memories, old barrens chat was such an early 2000s meme-fest.

“For every complex problem there’s an easy and simple solution that is wrong”. But yes, I agree with you that there doesn’t seem to be a solution to the problem other than to introduce consequences for this kind of hateful ideology into society again.

It’s something we’re not going to solve in a Lemmy comment thread, but this “paradox of tolerance” is something governments the world over struggle with.

And you are correct in saying that bad actors will find a way to leverage any perceived weakness (tolerance, kindness, decency) against you, because they experience no moral or social repercussions for doing so. It’s the same reason something like the “Gish gallop” works, if you face no repercussions for lying exploiting the societal framework against your opponent by shifting the onus onto them to stay truthful and refute your lies mean you get to shift the burden of work to them, meaning it’s easier and faster to lie and keep lying.

And yes, you are also correct on how curtailing speech by legislation can be a slippery slope, malicious actors will likely leverage whatever you come up with to curtail hate speech and inciting of violence against their targets groups into the exact thing they will use to then attack the liberties of those groups with. I just don’t think not doing anything and letting societal repercussions do the job for us is working all to well either (see the rise of Nazi and other extremist right-wing ideologies).

This is the kind of emotional intelligence that the vast majority of the population lack. And I am not sure how we can get more folks to get to this point.

While you are not wrong, the enemy of “perfect” should not be “good”.

In this case, presuming folks get into a new vehicle ever 4-5 years on average (I know the number is skewing more toward 6-7 in the US, but the point stands) having them switch to a car that has a slightly higher production impact but makes up for it after the first 1.5 years of ownership still means we achieve net lower emissions. There are numerous studies showing that EVs, even when used on less clean electricity sources, drastically reduce total lifetime emissions compared to combustion engine vehicles.

And let’s not forget that we can power EVs using renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro) which is just an economically and environmentally more sustainable practice than the single-use burning of a bunch of hydrocarbons.

While I don’t disagree in principle on the importance of freedom of expression, there are edge cases like these where it becomes hard to justify the potential societal harm associated with certain types of speech.

Take your example - if we have more Nazis publicly express their hateful beliefs we risk normalizing their ideology, meaning that calling folks out for being a Nazi starts to lose it’s effectiveness to the point of it becoming just another political belief. So all your pictures and stuff you are proposing cease to be effective, and may even act as further normalization of their hateful speech. All the while making the Nazi’s target demographics feel more insecure and ostracized in society.

As I said in my top comment, I strongly believe the tolerance of intolerance is, in itself, normalizing, promoting, and condoning intolerance. So while you are free to say what you want, once that crosses a line of inciting acts of violence or promoting discrimination, we should stop treating it as expression and consider it equivalent or at least related to committing an act of either.

If we don’t we end up with Nazi Germany before long.

I am honestly surprised it took this long for someone to warp freedom of expression right back around to include freedom of hate speech and racist symbolism. “Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance” applies here and I hope this is where the line gets drawn.

Real OJ Simpson “If I did it” vibes.

Thank you for your service!

We need a version of that GIF of Bugs Bunny sawing off Florida, but for Canada.