GrymEdm
@GrymEdm@lemmy.world
- Comment on rarted 1 week ago:
I did not think you were being inflammatory or attacking me. I thought your response provided valuable perspective, and reminded us all that people are a diverse group that defies blanket categorization. I asked for your feedback because I just didn’t know how to fold that into my post, which as I said was the truth of what I experienced. I also wanted to help divorce criticism of people like Elon Musk from “accusations” of mental disability, which I don’t feel should be an accusation or “gotcha”.
I’m legally permanently disabled because of mental illness, and I live on permanent disability. I’m lucky in that I’m physically and mentally capable, but even so I’ve experienced a fair bit of well-meaning and malicious misunderstanding. It’s of course worse and more consistent for people with developmental and intellectual disabilities to be judged, and I don’t want to be part of that. That’s why I’m taking our conversation seriously.
I’m not going to delete my post because I stand beside what I said, but I did include the following edit: “Edit: After discussion below, I think it would be right and humanizing to add that although my time with that group was positive, the mentally disabled are people like any of us and will run the spectrum of friendliness, happiness, and social capability.”
I don’t think that will interrupt the flow or message of my post, and will address some of the context you’ve provided.
- Comment on rarted 1 week ago:
That’s an interesting addition and I have no reason to doubt you. It’s quite possible the people I saw regularly were there exactly because they were inclined to be friendly and happy. It probably also helps that they were closely accompanied by professionals. I can only comment on my experience with them, and what I wrote accurately describes my time with them at the gym.
I honestly don’t know if I agree that it’s harmful to relay my couple of years interacting with the intellectually disabled as I did. It’s definitely the truth of my experience, and I would like people to see the same value I discovered. At the same time I can completely believe it’s not the whole truth, and varies by individual. I’d definitely insist on my point that even the nasty folks aren’t doing anywhere near as much damage to global society as Elon Musk.
Do you think I should change my post? And if so how, given what I’ve written in this reply?
- Comment on rarted 1 week ago:
This is an insult to people that would have been given that label in those days. Those folks are some of the happiest, friendliest people I’ve ever met. Until a couple years ago I used to work out a gym and interact with a group of the intellectually disabled who would come in for exercise. They told me they loved me, worked out with me, laughed with me and they were one of the best parts of gym time.
Musk runs propaganda platforms, fights unions, visits Epstein islands, buys elections, and is THE example of the oligarchy that is in a very real way ruining the world and destroying hope. He has no right to be given a label that would historically would place him in the same category as the people I knew for years.
- Comment on Caption this. 2 weeks ago:
BTW, are you trying to say US oil usage has dropped? Because that’s not the case.
- Comment on Caption this. 2 weeks ago:
US oil production is not US oil usage. Explain. Do you think the oil disappears or doesn’t affect climate because it’s not burned in the US? Why wouldn’t I hold US policymakers accountable for oil being produced under their watch, even if it is exported?
As for dips, then there was the 2008 great recession and covid which changed everything for a few years each. Look at the chart. The decline started in the mid-80’s, and reached the bottomed in 2005. By about 2001 it was the lowest since 1950. Years before the 2008 crash. You are right that the drop during Trump’s last year coincides with the onset of COVID, but it rises again as early as the summer of 2020. And continues unabated into Biden’s presidency and last year.
That running on an environmental policy was a losing proposition. Obama was already elected into his 2nd term when oil production started climbing quicker than ever before at the end of 2012.
Nothing I’m seeing in the data suggests that Dems were meaningfully impeding/capping oil production. You may say it’s because the environment is a losing political proposition (and you may be right). But in doing so you’re just assigning a reason fir the trends and timing that show dual-party responsibility.
- Comment on Caption this. 2 weeks ago:
4 years? Climate scientists have been warning the world about climate change for about half a century, and urgently for a few decades. Bill Nye specifically has videos going back at least 13 years.
Don’t just blame the 2017-2021 Trump presidency either for the current high, if that is what you mean by your “reworking the energy grid/vehicles in 4 years” argument. Oil production hit it’s lowest since the 50’s under Bush Jr. then climbed again dramatically through Obama’s 2 terms. Then the Biden presidency started after a year of “low” production (that was actually higher than anything pre-2017) before climbing again steeply during the last 4 years. This is a problem of both parties, and the worst of it has happened in the last 13 years of which 9 were under a Dem president.
- Comment on Caption this. 2 weeks ago:
“I hope this medal makes up for 2024 being the year of highest oil production in US history. Which happened in defiance of all the climate science you’ve been trying to tell us about. You know, as part of the years of science education this award honors.”
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Rebrand as oil and gas facility repair and you might get hired here in Alberta lol Our current Premier is very pro-fossil fuel.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Canada. Hope you’ve got a job considered valuable, because there’s a lot of Americans trying to get here apparently.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Yes if it comes to that, and within the bounds of rules of war. Accepting surrender, treatment of POWs, avoiding civilian casualties, rules of engagement and so on. The nation isn’t there yet, and there are serious legal and administrative attempts being made to block the worst of Trump’s policies. But if the US does in fact have a civil war, I am cheering for those opposing fascists.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
It won’t be a few if that happens, it won’t be limited to those that chose to fight, and deaths won’t be the only serious consequence. That’s why other people are asking for level heads.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Pro-violence Lemmy users and power fantasies.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
They probably want to stay and steer their fellow citizens away from violent crimes and towards resisting in ways that don’t make them look like murderous stalkers. Why don’t you leave? If the country is awful enough to justify these crimes, you’re still free to do so. You said so yourself.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Yeah, there are differences. It’s not like I support people like Fuentes. I’ve posted several times about him being a reprehensible bastard. But in many ways that matter there are serious similarities or even exact mirrors. Both:
I magically know who should die so I’m right. I’m righteously saving my country, so I don’t need checks and balances or the mandate of the population.
I don’t care if it escalates national violence, even starts a war and gets others killed - I have the right to make the choice that forces consequences on others.
Good people are going to cheer, bad people are going to live in fear and give up their wicked ways, and I’m going to be a hero.
Abandon peaceful, legal options. It doesn’t matter if multiple challenges to Trump are happening at all levels of government, my way is better and we don’t even need to wait.
I’m powerful enough/my side is that the bad guys will die and we’ll win. I’m so scary and capable, you don’t even know.
I’m going to talk as if I’m a big scary monster of a combatant, and actually sit on my ass posting “fuck them” and telling other people to kill. <The doxing thread was hilarious before it got taken down. People were all “they’re not near me” and “I hope someone else does it”. Buddy, they’re the guy who talks shit at the bar and stalls until the bouncer arrives then tells everyone they’re lucky. If I was wrong they’d be doing something (and ruining/ending a lot of lives in the process), not talking BS on Lemmy. I’m not telling people to actually act, I’m saying I don’t need to worry about 99.999% of the big tough internet men doing so. The murder fetishists in this thread are all hoping if the message reaches thousands, one mentally unstable murderer will assassinate Fuentes for them so they can cheer from the bleachers without consequences.>
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
If you mean the link I posted, that’s fair, it’s a long article. It’s #8 on the list if you want to confirm.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
I’m assuming you’re being kind of sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek as it were. If anyone takes it seriously though: if the people you oppose are so incompetent they pose no threat, then why do you need to beat/murder them in the 1st place? If you look up “enemy is both weak and strong”, saying that is actually a defining characteristic of fascism (and I assume other authoritarian ideologies).
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
That’s a wonderful compliment and I genuinely smiled. Everyone has their skills, and I’m 100% positive you exceed me in other ways. We all contribute.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
one side wants to kill minorities and other groups while the other wants to kill people who want to kill minorities.
Both sides want to kill millions, without trial, on the basis of perceived danger. There’s no moral high ground. No rules of war, no official oversight, just civilians murdering their countrymen in large numbers. Even the people pushing violence are pushing the idea that “if they want to kill then we’ll kill them first”.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Would you say painting WWII Nazis as evil and fighting a war against them is the same as them invading Poland to subjugate the natives?
I wouldn’t say that, but I understand why you’d ask. The Nazis weren’t opposed by sending any civilian angry enough into Germany to shoot people they thought were fascists. When Germany invaded Poland, other countries declared war (although they several months before they actually engaged in combat.) In another comment I wrote why I think formal war with rules of war is different than vigilante killing. In a 2nd, I said that if it comes down to army vs. army civil war I’d say fight hard. In yet another, I told someone they were trying to be the WW2 Allies without the army or mandate.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
I sincerely apologize then - even if I didn’t resort to insults, please forgive my undeniably hostile tone. I’ve been under a lot of fire in this thread for opposing vigilantes, and I mistook your position for one of theirs. I may be mistaken again, but you sound like a pacifist. That is a stance I can empathize with and respect, if not honestly espouse myself. I think sometimes violence is sometimes a necessary final resort. I believe in trying to reduce harm in those instances by constraining the violence as described above.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
What examples do you mean? Public/media figures like Fuentes have been killed? I didn’t know that. I didn’t even know that Republicans and Democrats were regularly killing each other based on political affiliation. And nothing happened? No court cases, no escalations in rhetoric, the murders just disappeared?
I guess if you guys kill just a handful of people it’s alright, yeah? I don’t know what it will accomplish given the million of people that fall under the category of “should die” in this thread, other than ruining/ending lives (including your own). But if you’re right perhaps you can get away with a few before it really kicks off. BTW, in case someone reads this - don’t kill people even if you’re angry. I don’t actually think “just a few” murders are the right thing to do.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
You will get hate for it, but not because you’re wrong. Also, while doxing is legal in the US if it’s just posting a person’s details like address, it becomes illegal if it’s used for things like intimidation and inciting violence.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
I guess if you make the 134 million guns owners in America enraged and frightened for their life by killing them you can make sure it’s a civil war.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Do you think that “they could be killing us” will get the same response as “they ARE killing us”? Trump is going to have a field day if people like you get their way.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
The Proud Boys and other militias believe the exact same thing, just swap anti-fascist for anti-traitors who want to destroy America. You’re advocating for violence just like they are, and both extremist sides are POSITIVE they’re doing the right thing.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Perhaps you didn’t know this, but Russia IS being opposed by to the tune of billions of dollars of support and widespread condemnation for their war of aggression including meaningful economic sanctions and asset seizures. The only reason NATO won’t deploy troops is because no one wants WW3. Nations are even now considering escalating their support following the deployment of North Koreans.
Israel IS being opposed by huge swathes of the world. If the US wasn’t providing veto cover for them and lethal military strikes against everyone who fights Israel, they’d have been censured in the UN by now. Long story short, the US is at fault for the genocide as Israel wouldn’t have the means to conduct genocide without their decades of “blank check” support. Do you think US policy means that civilians should start killing Zionists in America and abroad? Should people have killed Biden and his whole cabinet a few months into the war because boundaries on war are being broken?
Your argument that rules shouldn’t matter because sometimes they are broken is flawed. You want me to agree that civilians being free to murder other civilians the world over because who follows the rules anyways? There are unjust trials. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to a trial before they’re killed. There are bad politicians, doesn’t mean all politics should be banned. There are bad marriages. There are bad police. There are bad doctors.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Historically it’s leaders like Presidents, governors, and generals. Not forum posts.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
No worries. War is unavoidable at times - dictators exist, people get desperate, and so on. There are legalities involved, but they aren’t my main concern. Morally, there’s a difference to me between killing someone because I hate them and killing someone because I’m protecting my homeland. There are strict rules to war that help keep things somewhat ethical - war is never going to be “clean”. Policies like rules of engagement, being able to surrender, treatment of POWs, genuinely avoiding targetting civilians (the world could use more of that right now) and stopping when your country tells you to all matter to me.
Soldiers are not asked to make decisions about who they’ll kill, thus the individuals are not being relied upon for justice. That is a big difference from vigilantism, where a person or mob of people decides who lives and dies. Ideally the leaders of the military and country are making sure a war is necessary last resort, and if that isn’t happening then other nations should be condemning and opposing them. It’s like how I think nations need prisons, but I don’t think I should be allowed to take someone hostage because I’m pretty sure they deserve it.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
Ok, I have those thoughts sometimes too. I usually cut them off right away because I don’t think I have the right to kill people outside of the context of a war etc. But regardless of moral implications, there’s nothing illegal about thinking.
A lot of folks are calling for actual violence though. It’s all over the thread.
- Comment on I'm surprised it hasn't been taken down yet ...well maybe not that surprised 2 months ago:
In a nutshell
In a nutshell you don’t understand effective resistance, just violence. Your whole paragraph is little more than torture porn - likely because you can’t argue with my specific points intellectually so you want to appeal to extremes of emotion.
Think. What do you suppose will accomplish more to slow and stop Trump? The Pentagon, state governments, courts, and civil right organizations with their legal challenges and administrative knowledge? Or a couple hundred Lemmy warriors “storming” Chicago hunting podcasters and fascists of Ohio who’ll they’ll magically identify and slaughter because they’re supheroes apparently? And that’s assuming all of you aren’t just talking just talking tough because it makes you feel good, which has odds of very slim to none at all. Even -if- you could and actually would, do not sabotage real efforts towards foiling Trump by killing people. If a civil war breaks out and it’s combatants vs. combatants that’s different, but you’re trying to be the WW2 Allies without the army or mandate.
They already have “violent vigilante rhetoric”.
“They’re evil so I should be allowed to do it too.” Let’s forget morality issues - in the context of murdering people like podcasters it doesn’t even make sense because it will accomplish almost nothing and cause a host of problems. Let’s say miracles are real - you aren’t full of crap, you don’t get caught or killed, and you actually go kill Fuentes or someone else like him. What do you honestly think the right’s response is going to be? “Oh crap, we better stop hating”? Creating martyrs and millions of angry, fearful people with guns is not the path to a safe nation.
You know one of the reasons why they’re calling us “cucks”?
Oh no, the incels and fascists on the extreme right don’t like me! …Are you really trying to tell me you’re upset about their insults? They can say whatever they want about me. Hell, you can too. I’m going to sleep just fine tonight without the approval of short-sided murder fetishists, regardless of whether their your guys or Trump’s.
