Veraticus
@Veraticus@lib.lgbt
he/him. lib.lgbt
- Comment on What is the attraction to kids? 8 months ago:
I’m only going to answer the first part of your question, not the AI/generated part.
No one really chooses what or who they’re attracted to; it kind of just happens to you. For example, you might be watching a TV show and someone gets lightly, comically spanked… and suddenly a light bulb goes off above your head and you think, “whoa, that might actually be kinda fun.” People are wired in ways we don’t understand to want things we don’t even know we want.
To that extent, pedophiles are themselves victims of their own desires; there’s no “logic” behind it, they’re not looking to have a relationship with a child or hurt them intentionally. It’s simply an urge they experience.
Of course that doesn’t make succumbing to this urge excusable, and any children who are impacted are of course victims and the pedophiles, predators. But no one is training pedophiles in pedophile camp. It’s just humans being human, unfortunately.
- Comment on Why google son't sells products instead of killing them? 9 months ago:
What
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 9 months ago:
Exactly.
- Comment on Why wasn't former President Bush of the USA, charged with any crimes, when we marched into Afghanistan and Iraq by his orders, under pretenses? 9 months ago:
Probably he should be.
The US wields a huge amount of influence generally in the world, and specifically in the Hague. Behavior that would get other leaders called to task is generally ignored if it’s done by the US.
It’s not fair, but it is the way that the world works.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 9 months ago:
Yeah he does confront his guests (though not any of the alt-right or qanon ones). It’s pretty clear he has an agenda, despite everyone claiming he’s just some kind of enlightened centrist.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 9 months ago:
In what sense would their numbers make Rogan’s any better?
You didn’t really think about this whataboutism moment too hard, did you.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 9 months ago:
That’s not true. You want to imagine he’s centrist because it gratifies your ego, but he is simply right-wing.
As are the people who he appeals to.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 9 months ago:
I don’t know what the connotations of him are in East Asia. I think the question might be geographically biased against a good answer from most English speakers.
We can tell you what he means over here (and many people are in these replies), but that might be very different from his meaning over there, so keep that in mind.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 9 months ago:
I don’t think he’s separable from qanon or the alt-right. Enabling them to the extent he does means he’s one of them tacitly, if not officially.
- Comment on What are the connotations of Joe Rogan? 9 months ago:
“Censorship?” Does everyone deserve to get on his talk show? Are those that aren’t “censored?”
No. He has to draw the line somewhere, and he has. Where he’s drawn it – who he invites to speak to his enormous audience – is very instructive indeed.
By looking at all the alt-right, conservative, and qanon guests he invites on his show, we can tell who Joe Rogan is: a useful idiot for the alt-right, if not an enthusiastic enabler of them. And he is as bad at interviewing guests as he is at selecting them. He lobs dangerous, loaded questions at the worst people in the world, fails to challenge even the most basic errors they make with their answers, and idiots lap it up because they want to imagine they’re smart.
If he was alive a hundred years ago, he’d been enthusiastically debating the Jewish question and “free speech” people around the globe would be nodding sagely and being happy someone is finally willing to stand up against “censorship” and “international Jewry.” Because he’s alive now, he’s just doing that about vaccines, racism, trans people, police violence… basically anything where it’s possible to have a bad take, he’s interviewing someone about it.
- Comment on Why do so many Lemmy instances use weird TLDs? 10 months ago:
It’s fun! From lib.lgbt.
- Comment on No one really understands our struggle 10 months ago:
So brave… thank you for your sacrifice!
Now fix my (your) AC.
- Comment on [deleted] 10 months ago:
I mean, he’s right thought? The point of the Constitution is to be able to change so we can improve how we are governed. It’s not inviolate and sacrosanct, it’s supposed to be living.
- Comment on My dog and I got jumped by raccoons this morning. Now I have to pay at least $1500 to make sure I don't get rabies 11 months ago:
I had a similar situation happen to me actually.
The rabies shot sucks but the most annoying part is returning for the follow-ups. The tetanus booster I had to get was much much more painful.
Good luck, sending positive vibes your way!
- Comment on Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low” 11 months ago:
Do my views need to perfectly align with every single one of those?
No, definitely not.
When does it become not okay to follow someone?
When their objectionable opinions are pointed out to you and you seem to be basically okay with it. For example, not unfollowing the person, not stating your disagreement with said objectionable opinions, or offering why you think whatever they posted does not actually contain said objectionable opinion.
I follow several online accounts and politicians specifically because I disagree with the content they post.
On Twitter, a follow is viewed as a passive endorsement that you like someone’s content and want to see more of it. You can disagree with this but I think that’s fighting an uphill battle. I mean, it’s 2023, Twitter is two decades old, and as far as I know this cultural more has been true for most of that time.
You don’t have to follow people to see their content, after all. It is a positive act which does mean something, and I’ve described what it typically means in the vocabulary of the Internet.
- Comment on Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low” 11 months ago:
Are people simply not supposed to use the things you do as evidence of the person you are?
- Comment on Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low” 11 months ago:
I think it’s a constellation sort of thing. The individual data points form a line that is very troubling. If it were merely “I hate Pfizer” and he had good reasons for it like “HIV medication in Africa is just too costly” that’d be one thing. But the silence, combined with the other troubling stuff? Not sure why we should blindly assume good faith given what we can see.
- Comment on Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low” 11 months ago:
Those links are just the tip of the iceberg!
As the Daily Beast reports, he also went on Joe Rogan, expressed admiration for Jordan Peterson, and blithely allowed Rogan to misgender Elliot Page with no pushback, and gave an interview to notorious transphone and general hateful bigot Pat Robertson on the 700 Club.
It’s not like he’s ever denied anything asserted by any of these articles. A Tweet like “I love vaccines!” or “trans rights are human rights!” would clear this up pretty fast. Yet, silence.
So… after some point, if it looks like an anti-vaxxing bigot, swims like an anti-vaxxing bigot, and quacks like an anti-vaxxing bigot… isn’t it just an anti-vaxxing bigot?
- Comment on ‘Oppenheimer’ Review: Christopher Nolan’s Epic Thriller About Father Of The Atomic Bomb Is As Frightening As It Is Brilliant 11 months ago:
Yeah how did this happen