Violence against self-identified Nazis is 100% ok. We had a whole big war like 80 years ago about this

I get your point but this is kind of a pro-punching-Nazis group of people and I don't think you are likely to change many people's minds lol

Ok, I believe you are sincere and appreciate the perspective. There's a difference between doxing Nick Fuentes, and doxing every trump voter. (In my opinion)

Do you believe violence can ever be considered justified? If you are a pure dogmatic pacifist, I believe your position is logically consistent.

If not: what circumstances can justify violence? Can the police or the military act within morality? Is justice defined by law or outcome?

If the state is unable or unwilling to protect a marginalized group of people, at what point does it become moral to defend themselves?

Yes, actually, there's no obligation to extend the protections of the social contract to those actively attempting to destroy it.

Why are you so invested in the rights of Nazis? They're not people

Hit me in the fucking face

I suspect (without any evidence) that these services were designed to be low commitment practice run for graphics cards as an enterprise service. Let them build up tools, expertise and infrastructure before signing any long term contracts

Did GWB ever get around to endorsing her?

Because the average human is really bad at integrating drastic changes to the status quo

If you scream too long into the void.... The void screams back

Valid

spooooooky

Who is doing this?? Granted I am not on Twitter or bsky, but is this really a thing?

And an air shuttle for the executives...

What I'm really driving at, is how can we have a shared culture that is safe for Marxists, anarchists, and people who would define themselves as Liberal? That was uncomfortable to type, but in order to affect material change we have to learn to speak each other's languages and treat each other with empathy, while remaining open minded and learning from each other. It doesn't advance any cause to dunk on each other for Internet points.

The tricky part is where is the line drawn? Some 'anarchists' are just accelerationists. Some MLs are just Soviet flavored conservatives. Some Liberals value the system itself more than marginalized people.

I propose that the shared value we all have is empathy. Regardless of how you felt about voting for Kamala - or whether you feel the system must be improved or destroyed - if you want to see the lives of marginalized people (and by extension, all of us) improve, we should be able to find common ground.

Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about the recent thing we're all doing our best not to panic spiral about. I'm talking about common ground in shared spaces and future politics.

Some things are not eligible for compromise. Human rights are non negotiable. We can debate about voting systems and trade policy but the only other is those who aren't willing to treat the least privileged members of society the way they want to be treated.

This is exactly what I was hoping to crystallize

That's a good way to look at it. You don't herd cats, you show them something they want and they'll herd themselves independently :)

This could be distilled down to 'empathy' almost. It's very easy to fall into patterns of chasing rage bait and lose track of ourselves

DEEP GIF CO