the communities here that thrive have massive superiority complexes.

the reason hobby subs here don’t thrive is the userbase here isn’t interested in being humble or chill the way many such communities are humble and chill.

It’s a moral prop. Sort of like pedophilia is for the right, for the left trans issues lets them concern troll and beat everyone over the head with how noble they are for supporting it and how evil anyone is who doesn’t agree 110%. Most of the comments I see about trans issues on here are not even positive, they are mostly ‘if you don’t support trans rights 120% and believe in the removal of heterosexuality, you’re a bigot/nazi/genocide supporter’. It’s insane. but I have no doubt people genuinely think that way because I know ones like that IRL. They tend to be deeply insecure and fragile people who’s coping mechanism is just being insanely irrationally angry. They are just the leftist MAGA types of people.

People do this IRL all the time. It’s how people are. They aren’t kind and thoughtful.

I have people jump down my throat and start lecturing me about myself on weekly basis IRL. I even have them harass me while I’m minding my business reading a book in a cafe… because it’s an ‘bad’ book.

I also regular have people try to start arguments with me while I’m walking my dog on the street.

I’m afraid of the harassment and being banned.

All it takes is a little dogpiling and usually the mod piles on too and bans you.

lemmy doesnt’ really do DMs yet, but if it did I can bet I’d be getting TONS of nasty DMs from weirdos who take internet comments personally.

There is some diversity… it’s just you get harassed for being different and it takes a really tough mentality to ignore it or a really huge block list.

It’s not depression. It’s identity politics they believe in and that necessary leads to absurd beliefs.

I don’t know, pessimism seems to be the norm. IRL I live in one of the richest zip codes in America… and pretty much every convo I have or overhear is people whining about how life sucks and how hard it is and how mean everyone else is to them.

We live in a ‘victim hood’ culture these days. People aren’t proud of things anymore or optimistic, it’s an arms race to see who can the most pessimistic and whiny.

The only time I hear or interact with people being positive it’s mostly them talking abotu self-help crap or whatever ‘therapy’ they are using to ‘help them cope’.

No. But I’ve been accused of this sort of thing by people before.

could be worse. you could choose and she could enjoy it and then hate you for being right. I had an ex who broke up with me for this very reason.

i had roommates in a city where you don’t need a car who would drive their car to work rather than walk a KM. If you asked them why it was ‘it’s too far to walk’.

right, anyone who says anything that disproves you is wrong and bad.

clearly throwing tantrums and calling people names is a thing only very mature adults too. toddlers don’t do that… ever

evidence based science conducted the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Let’s infect black people with syphilis and see what happens! They aren’t really people, so are like monkeys so if they die from untreated diseases it’s not a big deal!

scientific practice both past and present is often rife with racism.

but don’t let the facts of the world get in the way of your worship of science as a religion.

‘social justice’.

Used to care about it, but then I realized over time that it’s mostly bullies and wannabe bullies. And that most people who claim they are for social justice, aren’t. They are just for screaming and belittling other people who are different than them.’

I realize social justice is something you do, not something you say. And the people doing the saying are very rarely doing anything to help the people they ‘advocate’ for so much as they are using them as a soapbox to grandstand about how they are ‘good’ and anyone who isn’t as ‘concerned’ as they are is ‘bad’.

vtubers are just ugly people. they know they won’t get as many views if they showed their real face, so they use an avatar.

More clarity: modern libertarian was revived in the 1970s and blew up in the 1980s and it took most of it’s core thought from classic liberalism, but considered itself a more ‘pure’ form because it takes a more extreme take on the premises of classical liberalism.

Basically libertarians came from people who thought classical liberalism wasn’t extreme, or ‘pure’ enough to be a proper ideal theory from which to create an ideal society. They key figure in this is Robert Nozick and book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974, which he wrote as a response to John Rawl’s 1971 A theory of Justice. Both are considered founding texts for modern political philosophy and political science. Rawl’s work is more in line with classical liberalism, but has socialist leanings, which pissed off people like Nozick, because libertarians thing socialism is bad. Rawl’s book was massively influential, far more so that Nozick’s work was.

No, classical liberalism originates with Locke and Mill. Niether of whom were anarchist, socialist, or communist. Those ideas came 150 years after Locke. Mill was the contemporary of the early anarchists, communists and socialists who all originated in the mid 19th century.

No.

Anarchists don’t believe in private property, especially government backed property rights. They are against the system of private property ownership and think ownership is a collaberative/shared process. Their stated political goal is the abolishment of private property rights. No individual can own land in a anarchist society/government.

Libertarians believe the only role of government is to protect private property and property rights. It’s their fundamental premise of their entire political system, as in government is constructed solely for the purpose of protecting individual’s right to their property and this is sacred. There is no legitimate government in libertarian thought unless individual private property is protected by that government.

That’s the massive difference and what makes them left vs right. Where they agree is that the government shouldn’t be dictating to you own you live your life or what you do with your property. They reach similar conclusions, but their premises on which they drawn those conclusions are radically different if not straight up contradictory.

in America you’d have to be in the top 20% of the income bracket to afford that lifestyle, and in high cost areas, the top 10%.

what about up your bum?