The one you defend's choice of who is a bigot is opinion, and far from objective.
MashBoilPitch
joined 2 years ago
How very hexbear of you. I only meant... I only wanted to clarify.... Usually ending with a very narrow definition of some word that everyone else must understand your version of or they deserve dunking. Yes, without definitions words are meaningless, blah blah blah, back into another meaningless discussion. My gosh, yall like to extend nonsense ad nauseum.
How very hexbear of you to generalize and slander.
Subjectivity abound.
Why not call them capitalists? Seems more direct and less dog-whistle-ish.
Yep, I'm in compete agreement on neoliberalism.
Do not confuse the politico landscape with academic definitions.
My guess is we disagree on which makes a difference in the world, Not you personally (I just don't know), but I usually find Marxism a refuge for those disconnected from reality. It's so boring, having been hashed out enumerable times. Plus it has never existed in reality, and never will because it does not account for realities of human nature.
The proletariat dunks again.
In whatever you call the systems of nearly every corner of the modern world. Because they are all hybrids and usually contain some degree of these elements. Discussion pure versions of any economic system is an academic exercise and only tangentially related to reality.
Many non-liberals support capitalism. Ipso facto your definition is useless and obviously has meaning to you beyond the quip. Words are fun!
Are they unique to capitalism?
But Signal is bad, an op-ed by one of Lemmy's founders: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/why_not_signal.html#conclusions
I certainly agree there is cause for caution, as one should always exercise where trust is placed in such matters. But there are leaps of bad logic in that writeup, and the dog pile of FUD swirling around Signal feels nearly orchestrated.