Your best bet is to be in a lot of instances. My experiences so far is that basically any singular instance has its bias', and while some unapologetically ban users for disagreeing with them, the ones that don't still down vote for disagreeing with them.

While one of these forms of censorship is worse than the other, it's all censorship, and the only way to see a variety of views is to stay in the varying instances.

I do believe that extremism lends itself to authoritarianism. The deeper you are rooted into your belief structure, the more likely you are to believe everyone else has gotten it wrong, and the more likely you are to think imposing your beliefs on others is in their best interests. The circular model that I proposed is simply a way of highlighting this.

While I am sure this isn't true of all libertarians, they tend to be ogliarchs (or wannabe ogliarchs) in sheeps clothing. We may have another word for rule by the rich and economically powerful, but I do not think the gap between them and fascists is wide enough to avoid the blanket of "authoritarianism." I do think libertarianism is an extremist idea that just leads to a different flavour of authoritarianism, thus my point.

I mean, if you want a real genuine answer, it's that simplifying the entirety of political thought into a binary is a rediculous premise to begin with, and highlights one of the core fallacies that the human condition leads to time and time again: that of false dichotomy. Calling the political spectrum a circle is exactly as absurd as calling it a line, and taking either of these paradigms to be literal and infallible is to grossly misunderstand politics.

My point is more that both routes, left or right, have a path through extremism into authoritarianism. Try not to take the silly analogy I used to communicate this point so literally.

Let's be real: it's about control. They want sex on their terms, and paying for it doesn't put them in control. They say things like "genuine human connection," while desperately wanting a traditional, subservient woman that they can use to satisfy their needs.

Two ducks of different colored feathers remain two ducks. Discovering a second duck doesn't cause the first one to cease to exist, nor make a fool out of anyone who perceived it as a duck.

Pretty braindead position to take when Yog is posting pro-Russia propaganda memes straight to the front page of memes.ml on the regular.

The political spectrum isn't a line: it's a circle. It doesn't matter if you go left or right, once you go far enough, both sides meet on "authoritarianism." Trump wants to be a dictator. Tankies love dictators. Social cohesion is infinitely more important to these people than how they get there. As long as there's a government regulated "in" crowd and they're part of it, they'll justify any level of doublespeak, goal post moving and hypocrisy, and they're willing to perform any amount of mental gymnastics to get there.

I actually barely even have the words.

Past suffering is no excuse to celebrate present and future suffering. I don't care how frustrating it is that middle-class Americans have lived in the lap of relative luxury at the loss of foreign life. Slaughtering the benefactors of injustice is not justice. It doesn't even stop the injustice from continuing. To wish for the death of millions of ignorant innocents in defense of refusing to act to stop the worst of the knowledgeable offenders is inexcusable.

This thread is discussing Trump's comments that joining the States would result in better health care for Canadians. Posting in a thread discussing this topic with a comment that does nothing but talk about the perceived failings of the Canadian health care system is implying that the American system is better because of the context in which the statements were made.

If you are "not talking about the US at all," then what are you talking about? That's the conversation: Canadian vs US health care.

Tired of this lie, tbh.

The waits are probably, on average, a little longer, sure. The "someone is waiting an absurd amount of time with an obvious visible problem and they've died while waiting" is pure privatization propaganda fueled by people going to the hospital for things like prescription refills and being shocked when they're pushed to the bottom of the list over and over again while people come in with genuine, time sensitive problems.

Last time I checked, that's just called polyamory. The thing where they don't know is called cheating. We don't need a qualifier pushing a conservative narrative of what love is.

This is actually a super fascinating example of the way data can be displayed in a technically correct way to lead the viewer to completely invalid conclusions.