Comment

luciferofastora@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

I never got the impression of hatred from him.

would debate anybody who disagreed with him

I mean, debate is the way to test arguments and refine understanding. If your understanding diverges from someone else’s (like mine does from yours here), is it wrong to point out why you think they’re wrong and either help them understand some part better or be taught by them instead?

I think that’s just a different mode of communication and using social media. I know he’s chronically ill and believe he describes himself as “cripple”, suggesting that his body has forsaken him, which makes IRL social activities difficult and painful.

The beauty of the internet is that you can interact with people there, even if your body can’t handle going to the pub or whatever. So I don’t blame him for leaning more on his mind than his body and being chronically online if the offline world is chronically hell.

Sad to see yet another active community member get consumed by hatred and frustration

I think the frustration is mostly at the fact that rimu is pursuing a policy other admins have advised against and it’s killing his fun. He has stated several times that he doesn’t think rimu is totally off-kilter and that he gets the motive, just doesn’t agree that it would have any beneficial effect on the fediverse.

That doesn’t sound like hatred to me, more the disappointment of seeing a working partner you otherwise respect take steps that make it hard for you to keep working with them.

source

Sort:hotnew top

PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
yeah hatred was the wrong word maybe. Rage?

source
- PugJesus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  I have a lot of rage, tbf, but it’s not why I wound down participation. I wasn’t tired of arguing or overwhelmed by shitheads on the Fediverse - I’d mostly kept to places that shitheads didn’t congregate at by the time I left Piefed.
  
  It was basically just a policy disagreement with Rimu over admin/coding stuff that affected my experience as a user. That’s all.
  
  When my user experience got more irritating on a technical level and promised to stay that way, I decided that I didn’t want to deal with it and couldn’t move all my communities again.
  
  source
  - PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    That’s fair. If you ever decide to start posting more again we’re here for it :D thanks for your hard work
    
    source
AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
The limited interaction I had with him was him coming into a conversation between me and another commentator a level deep into one of his posts. He came in hot, dismissive, and condescending towards me. When I pointed it out, his response boiled down to, “Your bad take deserves it”. I tried to clarify my position and it became clear that anything I said wouldn’t soften his judgement. I ended up blocking him because it wasn’t worth my time. But it left me effected.

Bad faith debates aren’t about the argument and, in this case, ended up being about a personality

source
- PugJesus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  I’m sorry that you took so much offense to being called out for an argument that blatantly contradicted its own premise?
  
  source
  - AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Well, speak of the devil.
    
    I’m going to block this account as well. Finding my comment buried deep in a discussion yet again and feeling compelled to jump in with the same snarky condescension is exactly why I don’t want to interact with you. Your reliance on hostility, bad-faith caricatures, and aggressive profanity to “win” a performance is why I blocked you in the first place. By setting up a false binary where any attempt to discuss specific historical structures is automatically labeled a “noble savage” trope, you created a framework that leaves no room for actual historical specificity or nuance. There was never room for a genuine conversation.
    
    To be clear for anyone genuinely curious about this historiographical distinction: resisting reductive materialism is not an assertion of moral innocence or ‘noble savagery.’ It is a recognition of historical contingency and structural logic. Human violence is real, but it is not a uniform mechanical reflex. Kinship-based warfare and state-sponsored, capitalist settler-colonialism operate under fundamentally different cultural schemas and institutional logics. Recognizing that culture actively shapes how human societies utilize power and resources rather than treating all humans as uniform cogs in a deterministic equation is standard social theory.
    
    If you are not PugJesus and happen to see his point and the errors I made, I’m very open to hearing them. Please do take the time to understand my interpretive frame. I think I’ve carefully situated it such that it doesn’t preclude the possibility of this happening, but recognizes the role of culture in providing a mitigating factor. I just ask that you engage in direct discussion and assume a modicum of good faith on my part. It is something I take seriously.
    
    Here are some thinkers and movements who have influenced my views: The Cultural Turn: Thinkers who argue that culture is not merely a passive byproduct of an economic base, but an active, creative force that shapes human behavior and historical outcomes on its own terms. If they made any major mistake, it was that there was no theory making.
    
    Logics of History by William Sewell Jr: He critiques the radical particularism of the “cultural turn” while rejecting mechanical materialism. Sewell bridges the gap by arguing that historical events can be bracketed to reveal how Schemas (cultural logics/rules) and Resources (material power) dialectically interact to transform social structures over time. If there’s anything I would want anyone to walk away with, its the understanding and value of bracketing when doing history.
    
    Antonio Gramsci: His cultural hegemony notes that cultural frameworks, ideas, and “common sense” actively shape material realities and must be engaged with as an independent site of struggle.
    
    Bertell Ollman: Develops the idea that social relations are a web of internal relations where the individual, culture, and material conditions co-constitute each other simultaneously.
    
    Ernst Bloch: He rejected linear material determinism, showing that humans live in overlapping cultural temporalities that prevent consciousness from simply “mirroring” the immediate economic base.
    
    When it comes to doing history, I reject predetermined trajectories and defend culture as an active, open-ended variable. Humans are universally bound by material realities, their cultural systems dictate how they respond to those realities, making historical development fundamentally open-ended rather than mechanically predictable.
    
    source
    PugJesus@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    Your reliance on hostility, bad-faith caricatures, and aggressive profanity to “win” a performance is why I blocked you in the first place. By setting up a false binary where any attempt to discuss specific historical structures is automatically labeled a “noble savage” trope, you created a framework that leaves no room for actual historical specificity or nuance. There was never room for a genuine conversation.
    
    “By setting up a false binary”
    
    Excuse me, but you were the who fucking opened up with
    
    What ever intertribal conflicts happened, they never reached the level of disease spread, displacement, and systematic violence aimed at cultural erasure
    
    Which is utterly and completely wrong on its face, and doubled down on it by vaguely asserting ‘culture’ as a reason why it didn’t happen, despite the ample evidence of intertribal displacement and systematic violence aimed at cultural erasure.
    
    I’m sorry that you’re still clinging to notions of a ‘noble savage’ that dehumanize Native Americans in the hopes of providing a neat and comfortable foil to colonialist atrocities.
    
    Thinkers who argue that culture is not merely a passive byproduct of an economic base, but an active, creative force that shapes human behavior and historical outcomes on its own terms.
    
    Which does not actually address the issue that your assertions had, nor my objections. Since my objection wasn’t “Culture doesn’t affect anything” but rather “These are all things that quite verifiably happened, and the core reason for them not happening on a larger scale is material, not moral or cultural,” especially as your incredibly unserious assertion was on a vague ‘Native American’ culture, as if there was such a monolith, even just within the continental US, wherein the only real commonality was a chalcolithic or pre-chalcolithic level of material technology. India and fucking pre-Iron Age Germania had more in common than that.
    
    source