It's really interesting how the right has embraced moral relativism on a case-by-case basis. Often it is a strategy to quarantine/localize ideas, so as to avoid the need to reconcile them to any broader worldview.
It's also a strategy for insulating ideas and events from history that they want to shelter from criticism, like criticizing slavery, theocracy, monarchism, etc. I've seen real cases in the wild where criticism of slavery was dismissed as "presentism", as inappropriately imposing present day moral values.
This was a longstanding fediverse complaint, which was quite remarkable to me. It was described as a "missing" feature even though you never had this ability anywhere else let alone the fediverse.
If you get a new email address, it doesn't bring your contacts or your history of emails with you. If you make a new twitter account, same thing. And of course, don't even think about trying to port, say, your facebook stuff into a youtube account. But if the fediverse can't, then it's a dealbreaker.
If you truly want to channel the limitless depths of human creativity, give a Comment Section Skeptic (TM) every fediverse feature they say they want. Then wait and watch as that creativity goes into action, as [insert new feature] is now the new dealbreaker. It is and always will be an endless game of whack a mole.
It wouldn't even matter if it was "right". The idea of looking to wolves for models of ideal human behavior is wrong for like 17 different reasons, even if it were technically true as a description of wolf behavior.
P.S. why do AlphaBros specifically look at wolves, or lobsters, to instruct us on social hierarchy? There are so many other animals, those seem pretty random choices. And pretty far afield from humans. Wouldn't you at least want something more proximate to us humans on the evolutionary tree? Heck, why not just use humans as a reference point?
And the original concept, as it pertains to wolves, is evidently not a thing. So if we're just saying things, the software metaphor is as good as any other.
Woah, we even have auto TLDR! That's how you know Lemmy is on the up and up. I was wondered how this worked in the years before Chat GPT, which I assume is still however it works now.
Pretty sure the Scrub Daddy came first! It gained huge notoriety for being on Shark Tank, as one of if not the most successful Shark tank product in history, and it's now in every Walmart and Dollar store in the country.
So the meme treats the derivative like it's the original, which I suppose is true to form as an indicator of how people lose track of ideas as they get constantly recirculated.
Did people forget what divisive means? I would say it's exactly the opposite of divisive, it's a comment that is produced as much singular unified reaction as you could possibly get.
In Tolkien stories, all the good guys are liberals. Saruman and his uruk-hai are perhaps the most leftist things there are in those stories. Elves are moderate conservatives with some questionable histories.
I hope everyone here appreciates what a special moment this is. This has potential to be the most downvoted comment on Lemmy.
Thank you for demonstrating my point without the slightest hint of irony.
Do you really not understand that there's a conceptual distinction there at all? You started out by saying it's a proud leftist tradition to call out other lefties for not being left enough. Which, honestly, fair enough.
But you think even the very idea of a conceptual distinction between liberals and leftists is an example of that? That's fucking nuts, and it's not the nuanced point you think it is.
They are both carbon-based life forms. Which means that at a psychological level they're probably identical. And there's probably no difference whatsoever between the respective nations cultures, economic or political conditions, or their respective geopolitical interests.
If they're living breathing creatures, and they both rely on carbon to form complex molecules that make up their bodies, it naturally follows that their countries have identical geopolitical alliances.
Agian I ask of Trudeau made the same claim, or the Prime Minister of New Zeeland, would you be making the same argument
Wouldn't that depend on their particular geopolitical interests, which could be entirely different from those of Russia?
I feel like these questions are so absurd sometimes not because an answer is being sought but because it succeeds at the goal of degrading the quality of conversation.
It's really interesting how the right has embraced moral relativism on a case-by-case basis. Often it is a strategy to quarantine/localize ideas, so as to avoid the need to reconcile them to any broader worldview.
It's also a strategy for insulating ideas and events from history that they want to shelter from criticism, like criticizing slavery, theocracy, monarchism, etc. I've seen real cases in the wild where criticism of slavery was dismissed as "presentism", as inappropriately imposing present day moral values.