MichaelPemulis

Reply to comment by /u/ziq in My Beliefs by /u/GeneralHelghast

3

MichaelPemulis wrote

I'd argue just as many people form incredibly vile opinions from lived experiences. I don't know what the fuck to do with people who are seething with hate, but getting off the internet and involved in some sort of charitable activity is probably a good start. Maybe MDMA would help too.

11

MichaelPemulis wrote

Dude... this is not going to end well. I'm not sure how old you are, but if your parents are confiscating your personal property I imagine under 20. There's going to be serious repercussions and it will look incredibly bad if you break into your grandfather's house to steal guns your parents confiscated from you. What if your parents/grandfather decide to get the police involved? What if they say they're worried you're going to harm yourself or other people?

Just play whatever game your parents want you to play and wait to get them back. Doubling down on this shit when you fired a bullet IN A HOUSE is unquestionably not the right way to go about things. You need to be much more sly and diplomatic about this.

1

MichaelPemulis wrote

I've only discovered and embraced Anarchism in the past few months so I'm pretty new to the concepts/community. Being that I'm a neurotic shut-in that struggles with basic shit like going outside, I can't say I'm involved in much of anything beyond basic self-care recently.

But I'm inspired. Keeping an eye out for opportunities to get involved and connect with other likeminded people.

1

MichaelPemulis wrote

This seems complicated to me. On the one hand, Alex Jones should've been banned from these platforms many years ago - at least when the Sandy Hook harassment bullshit started taking place. Banning him now is kind of confusing in that there doesn't seem to be any consistent standards of (or a history of consistent) enforcement against hate speech on these platforms. What about Paul Joseph Watson? Sargon? Richard Spencer? It's easy to see how this selective and opportunistic enforcement of TOS policies could swing in just about any direction.

On the other hand... though it's said that Alex Jones' popularity has risen since being deplatformed from a few sites, this is to be expected. Nothing new here. People have always turned into reactionaries screaming "OMG CENSORSHIP FIRST AMENDMENT" when a popular personality gets banned from a private platform for rule-breaking, shit behaviour. It's natural for there to be more attention drawn to Alex Jones after an incident like this and his viewers will congregate to the remaining platforms that continue to peddle his psychotic ramblings.

Assuming no near-term breakdown of civilization, I suspect this will have a decent impact on his ability to get new followers in the coming years as it will ultimately be more difficult for him to peddle his conspiratorial wares en masse. But who fucking knows.

I personally stand by the deplatforming of AJ here but I'm curious what other people think.

4

MichaelPemulis wrote

My theory:

Women are often simultaneously infantilised and sexualized. There is an association that youth = beauty and being young implies naïvete/innocence, thus people (men) have sexualized the idea of "innocence". It's a natural extension of this to sexualize vulnerability, weakness, etc. And children are (fuck I hate thinking about/typing this) the epitomization of many of these traits in the eyes of many, so I think that's where the Venn diagram overlaps.

jfc what's wrong with this world

2

MichaelPemulis wrote

The internet has been a cesspool for a very long time - I'd argue the decline of forums/message boards and advent of "Web 2.0" platforms shifted things dramatically. However, I feel like things really went into overdrive during/after the so-called "Gamergate" episode.

1

MichaelPemulis wrote

The way you've pulled out a dictionary definition to respond to someone posing a question/challenging you on your beliefs... it really doesn't make you look good:

A) It's condescending in at least two ways. There's an implication that the person you're replying to doesn't know the definition of the word they're talking about. You're slyly trying to imply they're stupid or ill-equipped to be responding to you. In addition, the definition of a word is something that can be Googled in 5 seconds so there's also an implication that the person you're replying to is lazy or incapable of having done a minute amount of research on the topic they're discussing/the words they're using.

B) You haven't replied in a way that fosters constructive dialogue. You linked a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary and asked "does that help?" which comes off as a smarmy appeal to authority. You instead could've said something like "The Oxford English Dictionary defines bigot as [definition]. You replied to my message saying [quote] which I disagree with because..."

If you're not interested in putting the time in to encourage healthy, non-hostile interactions with people, you're not contributing anything productive to the conversation. You could've chosen to not reply instead. Thus the question becomes, what are you trying to do here? Foment conflict?

I'm not trying to back you into a corner, but I do think you should reflect on the way that you interact with people here.