thinking that farmers should do work with nothing in return as a method of ending food insecurity is ignorant to the work being done to address food insecurity. nobody is proposing farmers should work for free. food stamps, subsidized farming, community owned farmland, urban gardening, universal basic income, food banks, all of these things and more are how we eradicate starvation, and how many other developed nations have successfully reduced food insecurity.

systems which allow people to starve are indefensible in a world where we can make enough food for people, and we absolutely can do that.

people should not starve. we have the resources to ensure nobody starves. it isn't a naive statement, its a moral imperative.

your public school promoted body dysmorphia?? that's wild. did the school have a policy about telling kids they were fat or something? i really am having a hard time envisioning an ideological position that's explicitly in favor of inducing eating disorders in schoolchildren. i'm also just kinda confused at to how veganism plays into this. how does a school tell somebody to be vegan? diet is a pretty personal choice, and tends to involve a lot of effortful change. was there like a program for encouraging vegan diets specifically?

what ideological position is this school using? because... i don't really know what kind of ideology leads to anorexia. anorexia is a complex mental health issue caused by interactions between cultural notions of beauty and health and the psychology of individual humans. the closest ideological cause i can think of is like... sexism, or fatphobia, or patriarchal standards of beauty as imposed by the advertising industry.

it was exactly like they were having an actual drag show. maybe not the modern cultural understanding of one, but they were dressing up as women to play feminine roles in the context of a performance, which fits under the definition of a drag show. it was a common practice in both the British and US militaries.

what is too far? what places? i hear this point alot, but do you have examples? real schools that are really going "too far" in some specific sense? where are they? what are they teaching?

such a slippery slope! supporting free speech means allowing people to talk about how much they want queer people dead, too. tell the people calling for violence against queer people to fuck off, and maybe one day your very own calls for violence might get told to fuck off!

everybody deserves a platform to call for the extermination of people groups, but they have to earn their audience 😏. i think we should do absolutely nothing to stop them, because doing anything just makes them stronger anyways. /s

the lizard thing is unfortunately just antisemitism, and older than zucc himself. the whole alien lizard people running the world bit comes from David Icke, who is very much a fascist, and was inspired directly by old school Nazi conspiracy theory texts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

sure. i'll bite. how about you tell me exactly what opinions have gotten you branded in this way? please. tell me what exactly are the kinds of things you say that get other people to call you a nazi.

thats weird. i never get called a fascist, and nobody i know gets called fascists, and i've never had to worry about other people calling me a fascist when i disagree with them. huh...

i built a rigid heddle loom and wove myself a scarf! it sucks and is super wonky looking but i love it, and its been neat learning about how weaving works and the history of textiles and all that junk. did you know that weaving is one of the oldest crafts in the world? we were doing it back in the paleolithic, like 27,000 years ago! its very neat. it took me like a month to build the loom, and a few days to weave the scarf, and its the first time i've felt this much consistent focus on a hobby in a long time. it also coincides with me getting new brain pills (and estrogen) that are working really well at restoring my passion for life.

i mean i get the impulse, but if we were to blindly trust any sort of knowledge system, science is the one to trust, right? like, any downsides of trusting scientific consensus are necessarily larger when trusting information sources that aren't scientific, and if you follow through with trusting science blindly, you might ignorantly begin to believe that empirical testing and intellectual honesty is necessary for determining the truth of your beliefs!

we aren't talking about millionaires? at least i'm not. this whole thread is about billionaires why would you think we were talking about random celebrities? like maybe this argument would be relevant somewhere else but i'm genuinely confused, we're talking about Bezos and Musk here, not actors?

No, because wealth isn't who you are, it is what you do. You own a business, you run a company, you are an investor, you are a politician. Every method of acquiring or keeping personal wealth beyond the physical things in your house, the physical possessions you bought with your money and the money itself, relies on your ability to own something that other people use. You inherit a company, you rent out property, you become an investor. All these things rely on you maintaining ownership over information, property, and systems. That isn't a passive choice. That is supporting the enrichment and maintenance of systems which currently represent the largest danger to living things on this earth in the last few thousand years, ecocidal and homocidal systems of oppression which represent a grave threat to countless species on earth, and contribute to the death and illness of millions of human beings. Being as wealthy as a billionare represents the hoarding of such a massive quantity of resources that actual human beings are starving to death or living in desolate poverty in the modern era. The failure to put our vast resources towards alleviating human suffering, ending poverty, ending disease, ending hunger, ending war, ending climate change, are the direct result of a system like this, which concentrates so much wealth in the hands of so few. No. Wealth tells me a lot about who somebody is as a person. A wealth like Elon Mush or Jeff Bezos is the direct result of horrific exploitation, bigotry, and cruelty whose impact can be felt on the scale of nations. Billions are diverted into the pockets of individual men, instead of towards the common good. People starve as Jeff Bezos flies a dildo into space. People die of preventable illness while Elon Musk buys a piece of the internet millions of people use to talk to each other. And they own enough of the world that they can steer public policy.

Even if you don't agree with me here, this is why people want Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk to die, because they are the beneficiaries of a system which grants them massive undemocratic influence on the fate of billions of people. We all have to care about this fuckers, because the infrastructure they control shapes the course of our lives. Tell me, who would you trust with that amount of power? Why should any of us tolerate this kind of control over our lives? How are we served by systems which fail to prevent the deterioration of our biosphere, the health and safety of our loved ones, and the privacy of our lives? Maybe you don't believe that men like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are this way, or you believe that there is no other way for the world to work, but others think differently. Who believe that wealth on the scale of a billionaire is itself a danger to our lives, that such power should belong to nobody. That if we are faced with the opportunity to save lives, make people happier, healthier, and safer, refusing to put our resources towards that goal is by itself an injustice. Naw, fuck Jeff Bezos. Fuck Elon Musk. The world would literally be better off without people like them.

haha. right, sure. wealth is an immutable characteristic. you have like, literally no understanding of history or politics, do you? i can understand not agreeing, but to make a statement like this you have to have fundamental misunderstandings about what ideas like "race", "religion" and "ethnicity" even mean. thanks for that. really funny comment.

like, maybe that's true, but i'm unsure if we have enough data to back that up as the main explanation for why people are hesitant to changing platforms, or if they are. maybe people have been brainwashed into staying on Facebook or whatever else, or maybe it was the first of its kind, and all its competition has been subsumed into it by monopolistic business practices, and people haven't had any alternatives for a long time. maybe institutions and systems are very difficult to stop once they get going.

i dunno, i'm really just not convinced by arguments like this. its taken quite a bit of time for our understanding of social media and its impact to become evident, and movements like the fediverse are building up steam for a reason. its seems more likely to me that you and i are simply early to the party.

my position isn't "we are forcing normal people to understand scary programming things". that would imply i think that people can't understand this stuff. its "we are engaged in communities where the structure and function of internet infrastructure is a topic of concern, and most people aren't". they aren't being exposed to challenges to corporate infrastructure. they aren't engaging with critiques of for-profit industry. but that is changing. people are more aware of the ills of social media platforms today than five years ago. hopefully, that trend will continue. i think that the only problem really is that more people don't know there are other options.

you learn enough about the victims of capital, you start to hate the people who own it. killing them wouldn't solve anything, but i'd still throw a party if they beefed it.

both these chucklefucks would kill you for a dollar. just sayin'.

it wouldn't hurt tho.

i try to push back against this notion when i see it: misanthropy is not the proper response here. people aren't sheep, they aren't stupid, they just aren't living in the same context as we are. for a lot of people (and a lot of older people especially), the politics of the internet are a black box, not because they're too stupid to comprehend this stuff, but because its simply out of scope for what they want to achieve online. there's tons of things to care about, and while the internet is a pretty important thing to care about in modern life in my opinion, lots of people simply don't live enough of their lives online to give a shit.

i dunno, i just get kinda pissed off with the whole "sheeple" bullshit. not everybody has your priorities, and not everybody knows what you know. that doesn't make them bad people, or stupid people, or subservient people, it just makes them people.

i mean, "dumb cake" isn't a particularly useful comment about something. why can't people try to read into things? nothing means nothing, somebody made a weird gender reveal cake where girls are frilly bows and boys are police officers. that says something about whoever wanted the cake.