OBJECTION!

It’s sad because for most people school is about the only time anybody cares enough about your thoughts to actually read an essay and respond to it intelligently.

I specifically disabled my watch history to get this. If I want to watch something, I’ll go to my subscriptions. Why would I want to interact with YouTube’s algorithm?

It does not. Where?

Tbf, the article should probably mention the fact that machine learning programs designed to play chess blow everything else out of the water.

More personal attacks, because it’s all you’ve got. Funny how I’m the one criticizing civility fetishism but I’ve been considerably more civil this conversation than you have. Maybe you should try practicing what you preach.

Also funny that you think you understand Marx, who famously called for, “Ruthless criticism of everything that exists” as if Karl Marx would be clutching pearls over me calling out Jonathan Haidt.

What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!).

Absent your attempts to make it insulting and pathological, that’s called passionately opposing injustice. Being dispassionate is not inherently more “sane” or “reasonable,” having emotions is human and some things should provoke emotional reactions.

But of course, in reality, my response was quite calm and well reasoned, presenting plenty of evidence to support my points. You’re the one who can’t keep pace with that and have to resort to these petty insults in an attempt to discredit me, because you’re incapable of a logical response.

Are you saying that in an attempt to insult/discredit me in some way? Yes, I’m neurodivergent, and proud of it. I’m also correct on the points I made (save for mixing up Haidt and Chait, as I owned up to).

When you can’t refute any of the other person’s points, just call them crazy 🙄

Seems like you’re contributing to hostile online discourse with all these insults you keep hurling at me. I’m just trying to have a conversation.

Jesus christ, it’s like you read the headline and desperately wanted to provide supporting evidence.

Well, yes. First off because it’s funny. Several other people in the thread thought so and made the same joke.

But also, yes, because I despise civility fetishism, and I also despise Haidt for being a transphobic shitlib. And obviously, the two are connected, the reason Haidt is whining about civility is that he got bullied on Twitter for his transphobia and he wants to be able to shit on trans people without suffering any kind of social reprecussions.

It’s funny how you baselessly assert “this has absolutely nothing to do with trans rights” as if just saying it somehow makes it true, like some kind of magic spell. I wonder, would you say the same thing if it was a more prominent transphobe like JK Rowling calling out hostility in internet discourse? What if it was someone like, say, Charlie Kirk, or even Richard Spencer? Are you a true civility fetishist who takes issue with bullying bigots, or is it that you’re only ok with bigotry when it’s directed towards trans people? Idk, seems worth investigating.

But, you know, maybe civility fetishism isn’t so bad. Maybe it’s me who’s wrong, I’m just a crazy radical, and I need to be more like MLK.

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

Huh, kinda seems like he saw tension disrupting the peace as being necessary towards pushing towards justice in equality in an unjust status quo. But maybe MLK is too radical too. You know who I need to be more like? Jesus. That’s right, I’m turning over a new leaf and I’ve decided to be more Christlike.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.

Huh. Kinda seems like even Jesus agreed that social change necessarily involved creating conflict, or bringing conflicts to the forefront, in order to address injustice.

But ok, let’s ignore them (maybe the world would just be a better place if assholes like them would shut up some times and stop blasting their toxicity all over the world) and look at the actual, present day reality. When exactly was internet discourse supposedly more civil? Let’s compare to, say, 10 years ago, 2015. Before #MeToo so you don’t have to worry about women calling people out for sexual assault and causing division, but it’s also in the middle of Gamergate, so you know, really not a great time to be a woman on the internet, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious. You also didn’t have a bunch of people calling out the bombs going to the Middle East, of course, we were still bombing civilians en masse, but I guess if you were a cishet white man, things were pretty peaceful and harmonious.

You know when discourse was really at it’s peak? The 1950’s. Before all these radicals started calling for civil rights or spreading division against things like bombing Vietnam or Korea, just an all around wonderful time, a Leave it to Beaver paradise, you know, just so long as you’re a cishet white man.

At some point, obviously, you have to draw the line. And I’ve simply drawn it a little bit further than you have.

Jonathan Haidt recently wrote in The Atlantic:

Ok but fr tho fuck Jonathan Haidt.

Haidt was JAQing off about trans people in the exact way that the Onion called out and satirized hours after their article was published. He’s a “centrist” who seems to exclusively punch left, and he’s just whining about getting called out with legitimate criticism.

He also got deez nuts’d iirc lol.

Edit: Shit, I had him confused with another Atlantic writer, Jonathan Chait. My bad. Haidt is also a left-punching transphobic “centrist” tho.

Finally

Worse horses

Slippery slope arguments aren’t inherently fallicious.

This thing I don’t understand

What don’t I understand about it?

I will refuse to believe any evidence to the contrary

There is no evidence to the contrary. The only way there could be would be if they got caught.

Plus I just happe to know you’re already conservative from your other posts so it’s just more evidence to back it up.

Lmao of course you do.

As I always say, “If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.” Please cite any evidence at all that I’m conservative.

I apologize for my mistake earlier, when I said my suspicions about Anonymous were more reasonable than your belief that I’m a Russian bot, what I should’ve said is that they’re more reasonable than your baseless and unfalsifiable belief that I’m secretly a conservative. Huge difference.

Lmao, “conservative conspiracy hole.” I guess “being suspicious of anonymous sources” makes me a conservative conspiracy theorist, somehow 🤣

This is just basic critical thinking lol.

In this case? Yeah, probably. If there was proof of their identity they would no longer be anonymous, would they?

It’s a much more reasonable assumption than how your lot assumes anyone who disagrees with you for any reason is a Russian bot, and can’t be convinced by any amount of proof otherwise.

deleted by creator

Anytime I see something about “Anonymous” I just assume it’s some kind of fed psyop until proven otherwise.

Seems more like the standard fascist approach to me. It’s probably not going to stay government owned.

1. Demonize a minority group

2. Government takes control of businesses owned by members of that minority

3. Government gives control of the business to (typically larger) businesses owned by the dominant group, allowing them to artificially produce growth (what Zucc is likely aiming for)

4. Narrow the scope of who is accepted in the dominant group, move on to the next minority, and repeat.

This is why communists often describe fascism as “capitalism in decay.” Because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, it becomes harder and harder for companies to find new ways of producing growth, and have to find methods that aren’t involved with actually increasing productivity, which is where you get enshittification. The fascist economic solution is obviously unsustainable, it’s like eating your own arm, but corporations that are desperately focused on short term growth (the vast majority of them) will happily sign on.

Socialism, otoh, is not about finding more stuff to feed into corporations, but, upon reaching that point, transforming the economy to remove the need for endless growth through nationalization. But socialism is not synonymous with nationalization, especially when the nationalization is selectively targeted and (most likely) temporary.