You’re good. :)

People are hurt right now, and hurt mammals respond defensively (universally AFAIK). Without pretending to understand what’s going on in your life right now, I want to let you know that I see you. I’m sure your anger is justified.

And if you think I’m preaching from some pulpit, I’m not. I am using writing this reply to avoid engaging in a situation that has a good chance of triggering some of my own recent trauma. I’m also not someone who uses the word “trauma” in the recent pop-psych sense. I mean it in a clinical sense.

Even though I disagree with some of what you’re saying and believe it is counter-productive to the end goals that I think we share (assumption based on your comments), I don’t think you’re a monster. You deserve the space to be angry and to express that, as does everyone.

If you’re willing, I’m interested to learn how I could better express my position succinctly without crossing into the rhetoric that you have read as close to fascism. That’s not who I am trying to be and I would like to learn how to do that better. No obligation. I already appreciate your willingness to engage in good faith.

(working on response to other comment, but it’s more nuanced)

We don’t have to forgive, but mocking (at first) doesn’t help IMO…

Yeah, but we’re on round 3 for people listening to trump’s campaigns.

Brainwashing is effective. Capital control of mass-media is effective. I would prefer we focused our attention there rather than on the victims of that propaganda.

Honestly, it’s gone so badly the last 3 rounds

But if someone genuinely sees the light after the third round, and their first interaction as they’re coming to this realization is to be told that the tragedy that has befallen their family is their own fault… not a great feeling.

There’s going to be a round 4, 5, 6, etc. of this shit in the US. There will be other versions of this in other countries, too. The more ppl we successfully deprogram after each round of fascist betrayal, the fewer ppl will be vulnerable to the propaganda the next time. It’s a never ending job because we keep making new people and the fascists will always be doing propaganda.

I really think we ought to have a basic “in touch with reality test”

I’m frustrated with the incompetence of many people, too. It would be awesome if we could construct some kind of system that would ensure people are well informed before voting.

I fear any such system wouldn’t pass the “would I let the fascists do this” test. There is no system involving a test that we can create that they couldn’t co-opt to e.g. make a test requiring Christian Nationalist answers. Societal systems need to be made robust against corruption and constantly defended against the same. We can’t rely on good people always being in charge, but if we build our systems well, we can get good people in charge more often and weather the storm when we don’t.

Fully agree with you, and touché on the glib use of the quote. I wasn’t trying to invoke the full depth of Nietzsche. I’m merely cautioning against crossing the line between condemning disgusting actions and labeling the people themselves as disgusting. I’m appealing to humility and humanity: a recognition that we aren’t inherently “better” than the worst of them. In order to be different from them, we have to act differently.

We don’t have to agree, we don’t have to sympathize, but failing to see their humanity no matter how unconscionable their actions blurs the line between us and them, and that’s a line I prefer to keep as clear as possible.

I am curious what you see in my comment that is “libshit”, though. I don’t personally see how the invocation of human rights and dignity is liberalism by any reading.

Hard agree.

I love this article on the topic: https://www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169

Thoughts for non-toxic male role models:

• Bernie Sanders
• Zohran Mamdani (looks good so far)
• Jean-Luc Picard
• Tong from Raya and the Last Dragon (watched this with my daughter recently)
• Mr. Rogers
• Aragorn

I recognise that no one here was antagonizing this person, but this genre of Schadenfreude is getting quite popular. While it is satisfying, it isn’t effective at achieving the goal of change. (I’m assuming that we agree that change is a more important goal than satisfaction).

If you only antagonize the worst of the worst and your filter for that is perfect my comment wasn’t directed at you.

I also agree that if you can establish that they are unrepentant/shameless, then the tactics you refer to (social othering, etc.) are more likely to be effective.

I think your final paragraph makes my point, though. Even in the relative electoral college “landslide” of the 2024 election, a small percentage of votes in the right states would have changed the outcome of the presidential election. If we target that small fraction of regretful voters and welcome them to the side of justice (without absolving them of their prior transgression, but also without mockery), that can tip the scales.

I am trying to encourage you and others here to keep the eyes on the prize: change. We do that by winning hearts and minds. We can’t win hearts and minds when we ostracize as our FIRST move.

(Once you find out that they’re shameless, no argument from me)

Careful here… while I agree with your anger, you’re using the same language used to dehumanize vulnerable populations. Everyone, including horrible people like Steven Miller, deserve basic human dignity. They deserve fairness, due process, and every human right. But unrepentant fascists don’t deserve our attention, our sympathy, forgiveness, or reprieve from justice (repentant ones are more complex and not addressed here).

To treat them as less than human is to risk becoming like them. When you fight monsters, you must take extra care to avoid becoming a monster yourself, after all.

Not everyone has the luxury of the free time and effort to pay enough attention, and those people vote. I’m not suggesting absolving them of their individual responsibility. They contributed and they have to reckon with that. I’m suggesting that we recognise the role that the system they exist in plays, too. And that they’re human which means they have all the failings that come along with that.

Do we hold Oppenheimer responsible for all the deaths the Manhatten Project caused? I argue we shouldn’t, but he still had to personally reckon with the moral weight of it.

Two things can both be true: someone can have been part of the cause of injustice and join the fight for justice. We can both hold them accountable; and encourage their growth, offer them grace, and welcome them to the right side of history. We don’t have to forgive, but mocking (at first) doesn’t help IMO.

(As I’ve said elsewhere, no reservations about mocking the unrepentant)

FDR, Churchill, and Stalin made it work…

The right wing is using propaganda tactics that are known to brainwash and dupe many people, and you’re not going to treat those who got brainwashed and duped like victims too? Yes, they’re adults, and that means that they have to take responsibility for their vote. Once they do, admit they were conned, and express willingness to join the fight, it’s important we accept them with open arms so they know our side is better than the other side.

As long as they’re doubling down on fascism? Hard agree, they can kick rocks. Once they see what’s really going on and are willing to fight it? Welcome to the team, sorry about what happened to your dad, let’s see if we can get him back.

Every person like this is an opportunity to gain an ally. It’s an opportunity to find out if this person was conned or is selfish. We lose that opportunity if we mock them instead of offering a hand in solidarity.

But there’s a difference between allowing someone the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and change, and antagonizing them.

“Hey, sorry this happened to you and your family. We are going to fight to stop these policies. Will you join us in our fight against Republicans, the people who did this to you?”

If yes, you get an ally.

If no, then fuck 'em is an appropriate response.

Resistance to fascism needs all the help it can get. Including those who fucked up and are now willing to join the fight, as long as the scales have really fallen from their eyes. Most people like this got duped. They’re victims too.

If you go straight to “fuck 'em”, they disengage, which is a win for fascism. They want the populous afraid and disengaged.

But yeah, if they’re like the business owners who complained about the tariffs and said they’d still vote for Trump again? Fuck 'em.

No, Bastard (Operators from Hell).

Hopefully that checks out, even though it’s an old reference.

(Also, agree with the original expression of the negative systemic evaluation of the US policing system, even if I don’t love the crude expression; and even though I’m contributing in a humourous satire of the expression)

This is the only response needed to any overtures from the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAbATWsvjTE

And sorry Democrats, until you get your Republican problem under control, we can’t trust you either. In 2016 it looked like it might just be a flare-up, but the reappearance of symptoms indicates that the infection is deeper and ongoing.

Oh thank goodness. Coffee Stain is by far my current favourite publisher, and I was worried with them getting caught up in all this Embracer stuff.

“Hurt people hurt people”? (potential explanaiton, not justification)

I can’t remember who it was, but sometime in the last few years a VC or CEO wrote an article documenting their day and how they “worked 12 hours a day” or something like that. What I remember most is that their accounting of their work included their time at the gym, at least one meal, and something else that few if any employers would consider “working time”.

I agree that sometimes C-suite execs do work long hours sometimes, and I’ll differ from you in that sometimes those long hours are legitimate and valuable for a company. IMO, it’s not the norm nor is it generally worth the premium that most companies pay for those hours.

I can only imagine the world where we got to keep Aaron instead. 😭

The worst thing is that looking at this case, at least from what I’ve seen, Blake Lively’s side isn’t as “pristine” as they first appeared. “They” might be right. I hope I don’t end up siding with Candace Owens by the end of it. What frustrates me about both of these cases is that unless and until there is a public trial, nothing close to the truth will come out. But of course the tribalism has to start already.

In the Depp/Heard case, we got to see enough evidence that a relationship with either of them would have been problematic at best, abusive at worst. You can argue about who the worst was, but neither came away looking “clean,” IMO.

Here, it’s way too early to be “picking sides.” 🙄

I’m cool with your disagreement. It’s not known right now what the best strategy is, and I’ll concede I could be wrong on that one. I don’t know if it will resonate more to “focus on the worst billionaires” or push “no such thing as an ethical billionaire”.

I don’t see anything wrong with talking about the oligarchs as “kings” as well. I think that language could work just as well with Zuck, Bezos, etc. as it would with Trump.

I think it would have been better if she had used a “yes, and”, recognising that the Sanders/AOC rallies are bringing a lot of people out and getting them more engaged, then suggesting using the “kings” language on top of it.

For those who don’t know, Bluesky isn’t really federated. The only way to host a non-Bluesky instance required 1TB of storage in July 2024, and 5 TB of storage in Nov 2024. Could be way more than that now.

You basically have to be a company to federate into the ATProto (Bluesky) ecosystem. You can’t just “stand up an instance”.

Lots of detail: https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/

(I know you’ve already realized that you were conflating Mastodon with Bluesky, I’m putting this here for others who come along so they can get the facts).