• edric@lemm.ee
    0·
    2 months ago

    I never know who is replying to who on twitter screenshots at first glance. I know the format predates Elon, but the interface really sucks for any proper discussion.

    • banazir@lemmy.ml
      0·
      2 months ago

      People trying to have long-form discussions on Twitter/X has baffled me since the beginning. It is decidedly not the right platform for that and it was never designed to be. In fact, its design clearly discourages any meaningful discourse. I have never been able to wrap my head around that site and its users.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    2 months ago

    On one hand Libertarians are stupid, on the other hand as an Anarcho-Syndicalist I wouldn’t shed a single tear over the death of a powerful person (politican or capitalist). Yes I get it shes technically better then Trump but lets be honest, she’s basically Facsism Lite™.

    • MonkRome@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      She is to the left of every president in my lifetime, which I get isn’t saying much, but she was the forth most left politician in the senate… Fascism is an inherently right wing ideology, the worst you could call her is moderately authoritarian about a small number of personal freedoms and a ruthless pragmatist about military.

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          0·
          2 months ago

          You’re just repeating the same tired old “Liberals are just as bad” bullshit everyone has heard a thousand times already. Not a single point here is true.

          I have zero reason to believe she “blindly supports the military”, though I suppose that depends on what level of support for the military you object to.

          She has spoken far more directly about a ceasefire and has been more concerned about Palestinian civilians than most other politicians.

          As for the “compromises with fascists” claim, that’s just bullshit, and you know it. Yeah, I know, she’s got the endorsement of many old school Republicans, but Trump isn’t an old school Republican. It makes sense that more intellectually honest Republicans, even if I disagree with them immensely, aren’t interested in another Trump term.

          Unless you have something productive and realistic to recommend on how we both stop fascist accelerationism by defeating Trump, and also gain more progressive leadership than Harris, I honestly don’t want to hear what you have to say, because I have friends and family that might not survive a second Trump term. A couple of people close to me didn’t survive the first Trump term…

          (And you can leave third parties at the door, because I’ve already made it clear I don’t want another Trump term)

        • MonkRome@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          Geopolitics isn’t a on/off switch with simple choices, every decision you make has lasting impacts all over the world and is also predicated on whether the political capital exists for change. If any US president tried to strip Israel of funding the house and Senate would react to counter that within a week. I’m skeptical that a president can shift Israel policy as quickly as people want, even though I agree that our Israel policy needs to change. People are also not appreciating the fact that she has to become president first either way. No person can realistically become president of the USA on a defund Israel platform.

          Kamala Harris is as left as she can be on every issue that politics allows, that signals to me that she is pragmatic, and but would probably move left once elected if she has the political capital to do so. Politicians represent the interests of the country, if she is a leftish authoritarian pragmatist, that’s only because ~51% of people are.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      I’m not entirely sure, because I’ve never gotten the hang of Twitter. But reading between the lines, I think this is the sequence of events:

      Libertarian twit tweets a death threat against Harris.

      Libertarian twit is reminded of the rules (and common decency) and removes the offending tweet.

      Libertarian twit passive aggressively tweets about having removed the tweet they twote, invoking the promises of free speech to imply that Leon was censoring their tweets and trampling on their freedoms.

      Leon responds to the complaint with the tweet the twit twote, simultaneously demonstrating that the twit is a twat and amplifying the message.

  • barsquid@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    If not even Libertarians will abide by the Non-Aggression Pact why do they think that’s a solution to anything?

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          being libertarian is only marginally less embarrassing [than being a Republican] anyway

          What about libertarianism is embarrassing to you?

          • EurekaStockade@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            The idea that a functional society can arise from a population that only does what it wants is, let’s say, unlikely. It removes checks and balances, so there is not really anything that prevents someone with huge resources to become a tyrant. What happens if someone with billions of dollars ignores the NAP to get their way? They can fund a private army, I can’t, so how can I prevent them from aggressing against me? Without a state law enforcement and legal system, there is no entity that can stop them. We would regress to a society of warlords, dukes and serfs.

            Likewise it makes the country as a whole more vulnerable to enemies. If there is no central state to run the military, just a rag tag collection of powerful, self-interested groups, then could they successfully repel an invasion? What if they are bribed with power by the oppressors, and facilitate the invasion? Look at colonisation in Africa and the Americas to see examples of how that played out. Tribes played off against each other for the benefit of the highly coordinated invaders.

            Libertarianism is a user-pays society, where if you can’t pay and can’t generate income (even if it’s no fault of your own) then you better hope someone takes pity on you and you receive charity, or else your remaining option is to just die. Our current system is a playground for the rich and a crushing, lifelong burden for the rest as we compete for relative scraps, Libertarianism would dial that up to 11.

            Note that I live in a country where although government has its problems, there is quite a bit of pro-worker and pro-citizen law on the books, and government institutions are generally seen as competent and are trusted. If that wasn’t the case then perhaps Libertarianism would seem more appealing.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months ago

        I mean, trump is leading the republicans and has for almost a decade.

        I’d be embarassed too if THAT GUY represented me too.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        0·
        2 months ago

        And yet (at least from an outsider perspective) libertarians are closer to democrats than republicans

        Republicans seem all about telling you what you can and can’t do (can’t get hrt, can’t get an abortion, can’t smoke weed, must marry and have children etc.) whereas both democrats and libertarians are largely “just live your life” but that could just be because all the american parties seem so financially right wing that they’re basically the same in that respect

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          0·
          2 months ago

          And yet (at least from an outsider perspective) libertarians are closer to democrats than republicans

          I’m an outsider too, but here’s my take on this

          For the most part (certain exceptions exist, like guns), democrats seem to be about individual freedom from government, but they want government to regulate corporations.

          Republicans are more about corporate freedom from government, but they want government to regulate people they don’t like (women, LGBT, immigrants).

          Libertarians ideally want corporate AND personal freedom from government, but a lot of people only want personal freedom from government if it applies to “their kind”. So they’re really republicans.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          0·
          2 months ago

          Republicans are also always on about how the government is bad (even when they’re the incumbents) and how deregulating things make everything better. Libertarians are people who drank a full jug of that particular kool-aid. Also like republicans, they tend to only care about gun rights, though they will sometimes pretend to care about other rights to make it feel like an ideological thing.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      First and foremost, it’s because libertarians aren’t a thing

      • They are republicans that are too embarrassed to identify as such publicly .
      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        2 months ago

        libertarians aren’t a thing

        [Libertarians] are republicans that are too embarrassed to identify as such publicly

        Be careful to not make hasty generalizations.

    • reka@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      When a movement builds itself of reduction in governance, the antisocial people we successfully govern against get a hard on

  • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    Yeah something that could easily be taken as inciting a murder, is actually not legal under our free speech laws, so… Yeah, he has no choice in the matter.

  • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    Libertarians are just conservatives without the religion and/or who smoke weed. They hide behind the label because they agree with right-wingers but are too chicken-shit to admit it and can say “bUt I’m LiBeRtArIaN” when something heinous happens

    • affiliate@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      libertarians are conservatives with even worse critical thinking skills.

      most conservative arguments fall apart when you ask 3 consecutive questions, but it only takes 1 or 2 questions for the typical libertarian argument

      • DMBFFF@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months ago
        1. We should cut funding to Israel.
        2. We should not tariff Chinese EVs.
        3. Marijuana should be legalized.
        4. The war in Iraq was wrong (either of them).
        5. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy.
    • auzy@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      Here in Australia, our libertarian party was the only political party to illegally keep advertising well past the election… Fuckers didn’t even clean up their own signs which they are legally required to

      • Baaahb@feddit.nlEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Libertarian ideology at work. “Fuck you, I have money” or “I dont want poor gay or black people dying in the streets cause they are black or gay. I want them dying in the streets cause they’re poor.”

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      They’re usually even greedier than normal Republicans too, and lean as hard on the 1st amendment as Republicans lean on the 2nd.