At the moment, lemmy is not great with comment integrity. If somebody deletes a comment (mod or the user themselves), the entire chain basically gets nuked.
So it looks like a conservative got embarrassed that they were supporting a white supremacist killer, and deleted their comments. Or maybe they got banned.
What holds youtube from blocking all videos to addblock users just as other sites do?
It’s a constant game of cat and mouse, an arms race till the end of time. You can’t block videos from ad-block users if you can’t tell which users are using adblock and which are not.
I don’t understand why self hosted videos aren’t more popular
It’s quite complicated technologically, and requires quite a lot of storage space. Viewers only go where the creators go, and the creators have no reason to go to someplace that is more of a pain in the ass to host videos.
Shit like that is also a far, far better use of airspace/resources
Oh, definitely make sure to leave and make it even more of an echo chamber then.
You’re really helping.
And then we would deny them their WIC, SNAP, and end the child tax credit to ensure they stay in poverty, and systematically defund public education.
And then when the poverty rate mysteriously jumps, which mysteriously causes crime rates to jump, we can just blame democrats.
Because they actually respect human rights.
No they don’t.
And the left loves to side with those who hate gay people, while also loving gay people.
The left wants to see an end to both apartheid and persecution of the LGBTQ.
The Palestinians are getting criticized too:
I don’t listen to, and have never listened to Limbaugh, so yes it was a coincidence.
This may surprise you, but there is an effectively limited number of choices in the creation of a sentence to coherently convey an idea. The word suggestions above your keyboard on mobile work on that exact principle.
It’s not a hard phrase to come up with. It’s only 8 words.
I didn’t steal or change shit. I don’t listen to Limbaugh.
You’re a lost cause if you don’t think a self described nazi is a problem.
Do you have an actual argument?
Conservatism can’t exist in the face of criticism, it requires an echo chamber.
You labeled them nazis to justify mistreating them.
You could at least read the article:
Brad Lewis, who has described himself as “an actual literal Nazi”
If calling yourself a Nazi isn’t enough then what is?
The people you want oppress are not nazis and were not part of a genocide in the 40’s.
You’re being ignorant if you think that’s the definition being used here. Nobody is saying these people literally were there in the 40s. You’re being deliberately obtuse.
The paradox of tolerance has to do with being tolerant of abhorrent ideas.
The original concept never limited it to just ideas:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them
This concept is still relevant to people themselves, which is why I brought it up.
It has nothing to do with mistreating people that think different than you.
Nazis do a bit more than just think differently. They kill people.
But regardless, what do you think the “even by force” part means?
I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument
How is that not a form of “mistreating people”?
Kicking nazis out of your store is not fascism.
Related:
I though you guys didn’t want buisness to discriminate against people…
… on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, etc.
Nazis can fuck right off.
He was convicted of a misdemeanor. Only an idiot would think that’s a felon.
He was in federal prison.
Freedom is speech is between you and the government. It’s not about people defaming you.
You can’t have free speech without protections from slapp suits.
It’s not that cut and dry.
The court determined that journalists were confused about the meaning of the term “felon,” which by definition refers to someone convicted of a felony. Although Blankenship was not a “felon,” he was sentenced to serve a one-year sentence in federal prison — a rarity for a misdemeanor offense.
“Blankenship’s prison sentence placed him as close to felony status as possible,” Gregory said, adding that for “non-lawyers” describing Blankenship as a felon was not “inherently improbable,” and there were not “obvious reasons to doubt the veracity” of such a statement.
“Some of the statements may have been the product of carelessness and substandard journalistic methods,” the chief judge wrote. “But at the end of the day, the record does not contain evidence that the commentators and journalists responsible for the statements were anything more than confused about how to describe a person who served a year in prison for a federal offense.”
The active malice rule is put in place to prevent public figures from sueing anybody who even slightly criticizes them. Without the rule, it would dissuade people’s free speech to report and comment on these things.
https://investors.yum.com/news-events/financial-releases/news-details/2023/Yum-Brands-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results-and-Increases-Dividend/default.aspx
They are just greedy. They have the money, but giving the money to the rich is evidently more important.
https://cwa-union.org/stock-buybacks-hurt-workers