Just check their comment history for like 30 seconds. Everyone makes a joke that misses the mark every now and then, but the shittiest people usually constantly spew their nonsense.
The problem is the red ones take the orange ones seriously. Please don’t feed the trolls.
The shit posters drive a wedge in a community and the people who don’t like the “innocent” jokes leave. This makes fertile ground for ideological take over. Rinse and repeat in Fandoms, subreddits, message boards, etc.
Relevant video
“Everyone who disagrees with my narrow worldview is mentally unwell, and other stories for children on the internet”
Written by self-isolation With illustrations by social media Featuring a forward by my racist uncle who would sneak me beers at family picnics
Very enlightening meme you have added to the conversation.
Schizo*
Alternatively, the people who are so brittle that shit-posting causes them to somehow turn on half of the community were always going to volatile puritans.
What? Maybe some people join communities for fun and togetherness. Not amateur hour jew jokes or whatever.
I agree. But the discussion was shit-posting, not racist jokes, or am I missing something?
A careful read of the meme shows were talking about edgy, borderline right wing shit postings.
Respectfully mention that it’s kinda insensitive, kinda like, “hey man, don’t you think that’s kinda insensitive?” and you’ll probably figure out fairly quickly which one is the answer. Additionally, if they legit don’t know why it’s insensitive, then you can educate them!
Just remember that tone can be difficult to convey on the internet, and sometimes you have to exaggerate the intended tone for it to be understood. Additionally, in my experience, asking the question from the other person’s perspective (“don’t you think that’s kinda insensitive” vs “I think that’s kinda insensitive”) seems to help a lot.
I hate concern trolls even more than I do being confused with a nazi, and I’m pretty average so ymmv
Tbh this is what I love with (uncensored) internet. It’s hard to draw the line between sarcasm and mental illness.
Yeah but also it enables stuff like Nazi dogwhistling soooo lmao
Well, Nazi existed before the internet and would exist without it. They didn’t wait for the internet to enable themselves. There can’t be zero downside for having a 100% free platform, I do agree.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah but Nazism spread via propaganda, which is what dogwhistling is a form of.
The Internet is the largest spreader of propaganda that humanity has ever seen, so it’s not surprising that it helped revitalize neo-nazism and fascism is general. It also served to make satire and actual radicalized behavior harder to detect. A lot of the time, 4chan boards use this “edgy satire” format to normalize the behavior (to an extent). See: the “MAP” misinformation campaign they did and how it reinforced actual pedophilia and demonized LGBT groups
muh nazis
your meds pal, take them
Wrong. /b/ was never good.
You like being around mentally ill people?
There is such a thing as a “non-extremist” right-winger?
Yes, Joe Biden.
He looked pretty extremist to me when he helped the Bush regime lie their way into Iraq. And the guy literally chose a pig to be his running mate.
Doesn’t get more extreme than that - him pretending to be “nicer” than the more overt right-wingers doesn’t change that.
I’m not absolving him of anything, I’m expressing a disdain for Democrats masquerading as a left leaning party.
Okay.
The probability of encountering a “non-extremist” right-winger is exactly the same as of encountering a “non-extremist” left-winger and is quite small. The vast majority of people are moderates, either left or right leaning.
Also, from the European perspective, the American left aka Democrats are quite right leaning :)
Oh look… an “enlightened centrist” has shown up to run interference for the right-wingers.
Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish center from right. I wonder how you drive if you can’t into directions.
Oh look, a person that cannot distinguish politics from vehicular activity. I wonder how you manage to drive anywhere without ever turning left.
deleted by creator
Both words, “extremist” and “right-wing”, have no real hard definitions.
No, right-wing ideology has a very hard and clear-cut definition - all politics that protects power and privilege. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Is being socially conservative right wing?
It’s not supposed to be… but the only people self-applying the term in the US are fascists.
Is supporting capitalism right wing?
Yes. Period.
anti-racist and pro-trans left wing?
That’s not progressive - that’s radicalism.
Is socialism left wing? Is only communism left wing?
Yes.
Is someone an extremist if they condone violence?
No.
Is someone an extremist if they seek to change the system fundamentally?
No, that’s radicalism.
Is someone an extremist if their political beliefs are very strongly held, no matter what they might be?
No.
deleted by creator
There is no common ground on these definitions.
Yes, they’ve spent trillions on propaganda machines to make sure no clear meaning can be ascribed to rather simple political concepts. That doesn’t stop us from discovering their actual meanings at all.
We both know that different people use these terms differently.
Yes. See above.
The German political education ministry for example defines extremism
Sooo… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
On the other hand, the ADL defines extremism as any belief outside of the mainstream
So, again… power will attempt to “define” political concepts in a way that protects itself?
Meanwhile, the British government considers extremism to be anything opposed to “British values”,
And… more of the same?
fact is that they do not have clear definitions
That’s because “definitions” are utterly useless. What isn’t useless is the meaning without which these political concepts cease to serve any purpose - and no amount of “muddying the water” will be able to rob them of that.
deleted by creator
But you don’t have the authority over words.
I have said nothing about authority. You, on the other hand…
their meaning is defined by usage
…ascribe those with the deepest pockets and vilest agendas the power to “define” the meaning of terms for you. Fox News gets to “define” the usage of the term socialism as “gubment doing stuff” (or whatever white supremacist nazi crack-pipe logic they are peddling these days) - but that doesn’t rob the term socialism of it’s actual meaning in any way or shape whatsoever. Fox News doesn’t get to wipe away hundreds of years of socialist theory - that’s why their ilk are resorting to burning books. They have failed to strip meaning from ideas despite all the trillions they have spent on their propaganda - so now they are resorting to the age-old tactic of simply attampting to prevent people from coming into contact with said meaning in the first place.
The exact same goes for what is “left” or “right,” or that which is “radical” or “reactionary” - usage does not dictate meaning. The distance between the usage and the actual meaning of a term merely demonstrates the intelectual integrity (or lack thereof) and/or understanding (or lack therof) of the user.
deleted by creator
Shitposters are definitely not innocent.
I would also replace it with trolls because comments in that territory are consistently on or over the line.
This is why I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I’d rather look naive than make uptight assumptions. Plus, I’m a reddit refugee, and I’ve HAD IT with pedants and the rampant holier-than-thou crap.
Removed by mod
Incredibly, Reddit was better in that aspect.
Tough
It really has come to that…
“Okay time to look at their post history” “hmm nothing bad… pretty alrigh- oh they’re a communist”
