No contradiction. Law is a dumb basis for deciding what you like and don’t like.

Comparing the Taliban and the Confederacy are apples and oranges. I don’t support or like either, death to the Taliban, but the Taliban were (for worse) the dominant army in the area after the USA armed and financed their precursor mujahideen. So, unfortunately, they were the only group practically capable of preventing the USA invading them from the other side of the world to seize the Afghani resources. It wasn’t an invasion over slavery laws. It was for oil and trade routes, and so many people will side with the Afghani state over the imperial Western alliance despite the Taliban being a disgusting regime. And remember, the Taliban were only in power because of the Western foreign interference, so it’s not like there was a real Lincoln trying to free Afghanistan from the Taliban. History of the region shows that there was never a sincere attempt to ‘install democracy’ there, it’s pure Public Relations propaganda.

Also consider not having an economy where our jobs dominate our lives.

There’s plenty of studies, videos and anecdotes discussing how despite technology becoming more and more efficient, we work more hours a day in the Industrial era. Most of the older culture we consider traditional didn’t come from the media industries we see today, they came from families and communities having enough time to spend together that they can create and share art and other media relevant to their own lives.

(although given the decentralised framework of the fedi, I’m not sure how that could even happen in the traditional sense).

It’s possible to dominate and softly-control a decentralized network, because it can centralize. So long as the average user doesn’t really care about those ideals (perhaps they’re only here for certain content, or to avoid a certain drawback of another platform) then they may not bother to decentralize. So long as a very popular instance doesn’t do anything so bad that regular users on their instance will leave at once and lose critical mass, they can gradually enshittify and enforce conditions on instances connecting to them, or even just defederate altogether and become a central platform.

For a relevant but obviously different case study: before the reddit API exodus, there was a troll who would post shock images every day to try and attack lemmy.ml. Whenever an account was banned, they would simply register a new one on an instance which didn’t require accounts to be approved, and continue trolling with barely any effort. Because of this, lemmy.ml began to defederate with any instance which didn’t have a registration approval system, telling them they would be re-added once a signup test was enabled.

lemmy.ml was one of the core instances, only rivaled in size by lemmygrad.ml and wolfballs (wolfballs was defederated by most other instance, and lemmygrad.ml by many other big instances), so if an instance wasn’t able to federate with lemmy.ml, at the time, it would miss out on most of the activity. So, lemmy.ml effectively pressured a policy change on other instances, albeit an overall beneficial change to make trolling harder, and in their own self-defence. One could imagine how a malevolent large instance could do something similar, if they grew to dominate the network. And this is the kind of EEE fears many here have over Threads and other attempts at moving large (anti-)social networks into the Fediverse.

Almost all of my creations which I share (mostly code and visual art) are entirely volunteer work. Community culture doesn’t cost money. Entertainment does not need to be a job, even if it must take time and work.

Of course industrial large feature films cost full-time money. But I don’t come to online communities for that.

The upvote/downvote button is not a [] petition for making a problem go away by disagreeing with it.

Unfortunately, in a material way, it is. Downvoting a post is a way of lowering its visibility on the platform.

I’m not complaining about it being crypto - I prefer crypto over credit card payments for online stuff. On the other hand, any monetisation of online communities leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I came to Lemmy years ago to get a step further away from for-profit internet treating me like a customer. Root of all evil, and all that.

As a wildcard (my first pick is already here) I put forward Pathologic. I’ve never played it and playing it seems torturous, but it’s absolutely an amazing game with an powerful immersive story. Or perhaps, it’s an amazing game which is a powerful immersive story. The game mechanics are a story-telling mechanism, rather than a mere medium to overlay story onto.

Hbomberguy video: Pathologic is Genius, And Here’s Why

Thank Goodness You’re Here

Just by the name and you mentioning it’s a comedy, I suspect it’s a nod to the TV show Thank God You’re Here (or more likely the British version), where performers such as comedians enter a surprise setting and must improvise.

• https://youtube.com/watch?v=FnM-cWvPoMg
• https://youtube.com/watch?v=rAmIG2c3e_0

My blind playthrough was great, despite or even due to mistakes made. Lost once playing sport so badly it destoyed my self-esteem, but also won a miracle 5% perception roll right at the end (although we scared it away). On my first playthrough I intentionally tried to avoid losing and I played conservatively enough for the game to start bullying me over it, which is great design.

I’m the kind of person who thinks it’s hilarious how fragile the player can be where (esp. because of the class I picked). The cursed chair didn’t get me but it sure made me laugh.

“World Socialist Web Site”, the paper of the Socialist Equality Party (who, in my personal experience, are toxic idealists who will counterprotest pickets and any union action whatsoever)

I’ve had great experiences with reading socialist news sites. They tend not to care about ‘the spectacle’ and don’t like ads. Although you still have to avoid the ones like WSWS who just use it as a platform to call other socialists ‘pseudo-left’.

Side note: There’s a great famous analysis of the US media in the book Manufacturing Consent. You can find a PDF online, but at the very very very least you should read the Wikipedia summary. It explains the reasons why media organisations almost inevitably have some of these biases and bullshits.

What do you think was the source of the general disdain in the UK?

When things get extreme they get similar.

‘Extreme’ is a vague word, but when you’re talking about communism and fascism (or more generally ‘far-left’ and ‘far-right’ ideology), that’s a false generalization known as ‘horseshoe theory’.

There are many clear counter-examples when talking about communism, like the entire school of anacho-communist ideologies and the existing societies stemming from them (including the Zapatista territory in Mexico with a population of around 360,000, or the FEJUVE federation in Bolivia, or the many anarchist communes around the world).

As for the more authoritarian versions (Stalinist, Maoist and related ideologies), despite their strong one-party systems, they are still extremely different to fascist ideologies in their goals and how they use their strong state to achieve them. To say ‘they are the same in many respects’ would apply just as equally to liberal capitalist states like the USA and allies, with their infamously militarized police, constant wars and imperial militarism, strong cult of nationalism (for the US, it’s centered on the Founding Fathers), mass imprisonment and state interference in bodily autonomy.

If the citizens weren’t tacitly benefiting, in any way from the resource extraction of the bourgeoisie, maybe you’d have a point there; but since they do, you don’t

Someone tacitly benefiting from a state’s imperialism doesn’t stop them simultaneously being victims of the absolute horror that is capitalism. That’s a big part of why even in the most exploitative regimes there are millions of anti-capitalists who engage in international solidarity. The capitalist class like to pretend there’s some national unity at play when they screw over the proletariat, but it’s all clearly bullshit.

Just fuck off if you’re gonna go to bat for a settler before you waste any more of both of our time.

I don’t bat for settlers. I’m publicly replying to your public reply, because it was sectarian in a way which is harmful to the international socialist movement. If you think this conversation is wasting your time, then just ignore it.

If I remember correctly, the admin (a US Lolbertarian) finally closed it down, among other reasons, when they realized the resident nazis there were not just joking to troll da libs and actually believed the things they were saying about ‘jewish shapeshifters’. They wanted a free speech haven, and so they got the people we collectively told to shut up.

Why would it? It seems like it would just be similar to the circlejerk forums they’ve have for decades, alienated from the mainstream and unable to normalize their ideas and recruit so easily.

It sounds as if you’re using the atrocities of the French bourgeoisie as a way to excuse nationalist bigotry against a people. The French state is imperialist and colonist, the French citizens are mostly victims of capitalism, not the settlers.

Obviously it’s a different situation with French people overseas, but we’re not in that context.

I don’t believe that fascism can be defined as an ideology, because fascists aren’t ideologically coherent.

It very clearly can’t be one coherent ideology, just like liberalism isn’t, just like communism isn’t. I’m definitely not trying to claim even those individual types (e.g. Italian Fascism, Nazism) are consistent, internally logical, or any of that. Rather, there are common themes, ideas and features which group them together and distinguish them from other ideologies. These groups form a model of relationships between values, ideas and behaviors.

The reason I bring historical circumstance into this is because this model acknowledges attributes like militarism and class collaboration as core components of fascism, with the implied question: why did militarism and class collaborationism take hold in some cases (where a fascist regime rose) and not in others (where it fizzles or is defeated)? Historical factors like World War I and the subsequent wave of communist uprisings are related to why fascist ideologies were developed and were supported by many ex-military and bourgeois. And that is why the conservative racist chauvinism in the neoliberal US and Europe is taking remarkably different shapes to the fascist movements of the 1920s, despite those similarities which guide your definition all being present.

An example of this is neo-Nazi movements like Patriot Front and their international equivalents, which do not receive the blessing of the owning class, which are floundering and failing worse than the British Union of Fascists. There are reasons why they can’t replicate the same political strategy and tactics as they did before, and some of those reasons are because we now have different environmental factors. They can’t recruit defeated ex-servicemen en masse, so they now primarily recruit vulnerable alienated nerdy teen boys. They can’t yet (and often don’t want to) earn the blessing of the bourgeoisie at scale because the populations have shifted in a more progressive direction. So then we see neo-Nazi ‘Siege’ tactics emerge, which are inspired by late-1800s Propaganda of the Deed anarchist tactics, and that is not going well for them either.

Then, we have White Nationalist and/or Christian Nationalists as politicians and billionaires. They often don’t want militarism or have military values. They probably don’t want class collaboration (because they’re winning in the class struggle). So like their goals, their tactics and strategies will overall differ to the fascist movements, despite the shared chauvanism.

If you have suggestions on how to adjust or change the definition, it would be helpful.

I worry that it is too broad, discarding what makes fascist movements unique. I believe the part about violence is ultimately redundant, as I assume systematic chauvinism itself makes individual violence and violent repression likely. The definition, in my view, is really just describing a strategy of using chauvinistic hierarchy, and I don’t understand why that is special enough to be called ‘fascism’, if anything that will just trivialize fascist movements and make the word itself banal, since for example xenophobic chauvinism is a strategy used by almost all governments worldwide, and which does lead to domestic violence.

Carl and the Aqua Team make their position on piracy very clear.

https://inv.us.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=MCTlcJMCSpM