It's not just you. People will wilfully misinterpret what I'm saying to their liking, sometimes accusing me of nonsense. Some others will jump in out of nowhere as if I owe them money. I have some asshole in my notifications right now trying to defend another asshole for some reason. The best part is how I'm the one getting downvoted for defending myself and calling them out on it.

I said that the same people were bad as this other commenter but I mentioned that maybe instead of hating them, like the bad people do to us, we might want to approach the situation with a little more nuance and uphold empathic viewpoints for everyone not just people who agree with what we agree with and they told me the bad people shouldn't get any sort of empathy because they do bad things.

Yeah, people have been getting a bit touchy and on occasion misinterpret an innocuous comment as an attack.

I've seen a number of accounts that seem to harp on a single topic, grow increasingly adversarial if you dispute or refute anything posted, and eventually just start screaming insults until you block them.

This feels like very old-school early '10s era Reddit, where the Admins don't do more than the high level stuff to keep the site operational, the Mods are as overworked as they are short-tempered, and a handful of power users dictate the content of any given channel by spamming it with whatever media supports their personal grudges.

The world sucks right now. People on Lemmy are very aware of what's going on and are rightfully upset and that reflects in general sentiment and interactions.

There is a simple test to determine if you're a tankie, specifically.

1. Did Tiananmen Square happen? Specifically, was it bloody, consented/orchestrated by the CCP leadership, and resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilian protesters?

2. Was it wrong that it happened?

If both answers are yes, you're not a tankie. You believe that oppressive regimes are evil regardless of which side of the political spectrum it spawns from.

Bonus points if you think Stalin was anything but benevolent. If you think his methods were "tough, but firm," then you're a tankie.

In 1700s Europe the people in power were the nobility (the descendants of feudal aristocrats) and the clergy (the church). Their claim to power (legitimacy) was that God willed it, and also they had the biggest army ("ultima ratio regum").

Liberalism arose from "enlightenment thought" and basically said that all humans are equal, therefore state legitimacy comes from the consent of the people, and therefore there should be a set of laws that guarantees everyone's rights and gives everyone a say in how society should be run. Some subjects (such as religion) belong to a "private sphere" that the state has no say in and is therefore beyond politics. State power should be minimal and tightly regulated through mechanisms such as the bill of rights or the separation of powers. This ideology was the foundation of the US independence and the French revolution. The political thinkers most emblematic of it are John Locke and Montesquieu.

The people who gained most from erasing the special place in society of the nobility and the clergy ("abolishing the privileges") were people who were rich but not part of these organisations, that is to say merchants and industrialists. Leftism was born out of the "social question" : everyone having the same rights is cool but the richer in society clearly benefit more while the poorer are unable to make use of these "rights" (for instance having the right to a trial does you no good if you can't afford a lawyer ; or being allowed vacation days is pointless if you can't afford to stop working). It is somewhat at odds with liberalism, because solving the social question might require to break some rules of liberalism (most notably state non-intervention, private property, and separation of powers). The most emblematic political thinker here is Karl Marx.

Some leftists theorized the state should be violently overthrown in order to install themselves as dictators and therefore solve the social question by directly redistributing wealth to the poorest. The most important of these is Lenin, who took over the government of Russia in 1917, turning it into the Soviet Union. However he soon died and passed power to Stalin, who cemented his dictatorship and took over a number of countries through military force. When some of these countries (most notably Hungary in 1956) tried to rebel, the Soviet government sent in their army. Thus "tankie" is an insult ― it means one who excuses the brutality of the Soviet government, or more generally the usage of force by a leftist power. It mostly means the same as "stalinist".

Meanwhile, in the US people were divided on how much state power was acceptable to use. The democratic party used state power to fix the economy during the great depression (Roosevelt), then fight racism during the civil rights era (Johnson) ; today a part of society aligned with the democratic party wishes to use state power to fight sexism and other social issues, therefore being closer to the leftist view. The word "liberal" in US parlance came to mean those people, who today call themselves progressives, and the "liberals" I referred to earlier are sometimes referred to as "classical liberals" in order to avoid confusion.

I hope this clears things up

What about Hegel exercises or Kegel dialectics though?

It's Bazzite BTW now

You can never have enough.

The difference is the Modlog, which means everyone can see the receipts. (For the record, while it might not have been the most tasteful comment, I think that removing it and labeling you an SA apologist is bullshit.)

The HVAC system you choose for your home is a big decision.