DPUGT

People are “mentally wrong” for not wanting nazis around?

Yes. When your choices are "do the hard work that would make them not-nazis" and "polarize the world so I can go on a Nazi-huting crusade and literally kill them"... there's something sick in you that you should figure out and fix.

No. White supremacy is not a logical position

Positions generally aren't logical at all. Of any kind.

and it can’t be argued away

Not with argument alone. Shouting arguments at them from Twitter that you've also gotten them banned from can't ever work.

But they can be "interactioned" away. That means 2-way communication. In close contact. The sort of close contact that was already happening before you "threw him out of the bar".

This isn't speculation on my part. It's well-established science. This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone here. Even if sociology's not your thing, you have to have stumbled across it from time to time.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

You're just wrong. And the only reason to still insist you aren't wrong, is if, deep down inside, you want to go murder people. Of course, you can't murder just anyone... that'd be evil. So you find those who are deserving of death, and then orchestrate circumstances where, hopefully some day, you can kill them and not feel any guilt for it. That's what you are.

Its not their goal to be convinced or even debate really,

Doesn't sound like that's a goal of yours either. Like, how terrified you must be that your arguments will lose that you can't debate them?

"Oh my god, what if I changed my mind and thought like them! How do I avoid that!?!?!"

It's pathetic.

This is not a free speech instance, and we will do no “debating”, of ethnicities right to exist.

Why not? It's a good point to start with. Does anyone have a right to exist? And what does that even mean? And if it somehow turned out that some had a right to exist, and not others, what would the criteria even look like? How could those ever be sane? Oh gee, skin color. It's definitely skin color that makes someone have the right to exist. This weird little pigment protein, if its amino acids are arranged in the wrong sequence!

I could tear the shit out of them in that debate. I would make them feel bad for ever having spoken the words.

You? Too scared of losing. So scared of it, that you accuse them of not wanting debate, when you refuse to do it yourself. So scared that you announce in a public forum that "well people really dont' want to argue"... ON THE INTERNET. That's sort of like announcing there's no sun. At the beach. At noon.

The truth is that you hate people too. Every bit as much as they do. But among your ingroup, there are people who it is righteous to hate (Nazis), and people who aren't (ethnicities). And you want to genocide them too, just like they want to genocide the people they hate. But you need them to strike the first blow so you can pretend they provoked you and not the other way around. It's awfully convenient.

If you run a bar, and have a white supremacist, or misogynist sit down at your bar, and let him stay there, you now run a white supremacist bar.

This is a strange philosophy that doesn't really hold up in the real world. Though it is taking root there the last few years, I wince when I think what it might lead to eventually.

It's also a counter-productive philosophy. If a white supremacist sits down at your bar and you kick him out... he's not going to cry about it and then change his ways. He will go find some place to drink where he is welcome. That place will, with absolute certainty, reinforce his beliefs. However weak or strong they were before, they will become stronger for it.

If he had stayed, what would happen? He might talk to some people who have milder views? This is guaranteed to soften his white supremacy, if not eliminate it eventually. People adopt the attitudes and beliefs of those they socialize with. They do so without even realizing it. The longer it occurs, the stronger the effect.

The only reason to kick him from the bar is if there's something mentally wrong with yourself. If you yearn for some sort of final showdown, where you can fight the Nazis like ole great-grandpa did back in the 1940s, so you too can be a hero. You're doing what that Kyle Rittenhouse did, creating circumstances that will inevitably lead to violence, because subconsciously you want to murder other people that you did not need to murder. It's sort of sick.

check out the paradox of tolerance for why bigotry should never be tolerated.

Mindless drivel, that. The "paradox of tolerance" is that you never really wanted tolerance. You wanted the world to look a particular way, where everyone thinks, believes, and speaks as you do. And when they don't do that, you want to revoke their freedom of speech and selectively punish them for it. Afraid that, given the freedom that is everyone's birthright, that their "wrong" ideas are somehow more powerful than your "right" ideas, and that only violence can see you achieve victory.

No one can have correct thoughts, without first working through the incorrect ones. Some do it faster, most slower... but you either allow them to reach the correct conclusions on their own, or they're not reaching them at all. They're just being punished and brainwashed into parroting what you want them to say. If you need that to happen quicker, you do it by speaking with them. Even if it is frustrating or uncomfortable.

When means of production are owned publicly then they’re used to create things that are socially necessary and benefit most people.

That's the theory. The practice is that they're used poorly, and sometimes not at all. 3000 tons of left shoes. Phantom inventories floating around, trying to stave off purges.

At some point they tend to concentrate on "socially necessary" because there's so little spare capacity left that that no luxuries can even be contemplated. So you got that part right.

And by luxuries, we aren't talking $300 million yachts... we're talking oil paints. Then we get the "state-sanctioned art" stuff. "When oil paints are scarce, they can't be wasted on capitalist propaganda comrade!" and "There are secret fifth columnists who will use this Cerulean Blue and Mummy Brown to destroy our socialist utopia!".

Gotta love "public ownership". But when you believe in fairy tales, it's so often difficult to see reality.

However, the key point to acknowledge here is that capitalist states are inherently violent.

Humans are monkeys. Monkeys are violent. This happens regardless of political ideology or economic systems.

Socialism is inherently violent. There will always be people who do not wish to live in socialism. And if you let them defect, soon there won't be anyone participating. Thus, they cannot be allowed to defect. The only way to prohibit them from defecting is violence.

Meanwhile, in the United States, any of you are free to set up your own little commune, and do socialism for as long as you like. But it never works, only freeloaders show up. And then you blame capitalism for that.

Capitalism has its share of violence. But it tamps it down... there are easier and safer ways to get what you want than to bash someone over the head and take it.

Do you seriously think there were more desktop users in 2006 than there are now ?

If you'll let me do plus-or-minus on the year 2006 and the "now", then that's almost certainly (going to be) true.

You seem to think I’m pining for some kind of linux-desktop utopia, which isn’t the case at all.

I think rather, that you think this is a winnable race when the Earth just opened up and swallowed all of the race cars and yours is about to fall into the abyss.

It's just over. I've seen too much from random yahoos about how their primary computing experience is a phone. And it's not as if those people are going to work and sitting down at an office computer, they work at Arby's or whatever. The other explanation is that there's an orchestrated conspiracy to mislead me into believing the desktop is dead by a team of millions of propagandists writing subtly about how to do common computing actions on Android, or that the desktop has just came and gone, like dumb terminals before them. Like teletypes.

Personally I think the last 20 years in computing has demonstrated that opensource is the best model for server software

Probably, but that didn't stop Microsoft and dotnet from conquering some large fraction of that market. God knows why.

One does wonder if even he is confused about the response he got.

Which would be hilarious... he actually had access to some of the most effective intelligence organizations in the world just recently, you'd think they might have clued him in.

I'm guessing that white children get to attend the minimum security school, while the rest get the supermax?

Seriously, if your ideal is that all children get the "equal" schools I don't even know that we can have a conversation. Get rid of both buildings. That's the only "equal" worth striving for.

Because that's the one where they don't include the steering wheel at all. Or the engine block. The shocks and the other parts are inextricably linked.

I find it increasingly difficult to only use Firefox. Most of my coworkers are Chrome-only at this point. Anything that doesn't at minimum do Firefox is a toy operating system. That said, I'm too unskilled to get something as complicated as Firefox to even build, let alone on a novel system, so maybe I have no right to gripe.

What did you get banned for, if only so I can avoid it? (Assuming I want to.)

"Piracy" is a smear term. This can't be any more obvious than it already is, when its detractors (on up to and including federal prosecutors) refer to the activity as piracy.

No bittorrent user ever hijacked a ship and held its crew for ransom. No murder, no rape, no mayhem. Never was one a mercenary for low-intensity warfare against the Spanish.

I don't think a term like that can be "reclaimed", and if it could, I have no idea why you'd want to.

No, you’re not free to do this under capitalism unless you happen to be born into at least some moderate wealth.

Define moderate wealth in a way that excludes a significant portion of the population. There are counter-examples all the way down.

I can only assume that you’re not aware of the second world war that devastated USSR.

Devastated all of Europe, or so I'm told. And yet things weren't even a tenth as bad elsewhere. And that only obviates the housing issue... the coffin problems issue was completely about keeping some out of universities where they simply were not welcome. Education for some, factory work for others... like everywhere else. (Hell, even in the US you wouldn't be kept out of university if simply by being jewish alone, the way that it was in the Soviet Union).

That’s pretty big news to me given that homelessness is rampant in capitalist states.

It's pretty big news to you that the homeless aren't starving? Or do you often run around confusing food with housing?

Just thinking about what kind of human garbage one has to be to write that sentence.

Compared to the sort of human garbage that implemented it as policy for decades? Or do you mean that I'm politically inconvenient because I recognize it as such?

This was demonstrably not the case in USSR. Anyone was free to join the party and move up through the ranks.

You're free to do this in capitalism too. And you'll do comparable amounts of backstabbing and conspiring and other shady shit to get to the top. The occasional relatively-uncorrupt person will luck their way to the top, and their personal biases will enable them to believe that it's meritocratic too!

Sure, it's not always been that way. We can go back to pre-1865 and say "but black people couldn't do it!" but that'd be disingenuous.

It also makes no sense to say that party members owned industries since the productive output of these industries did not benefit them directly.

Bezos doesn't benefit directly either. His salary is what, $80,000/year? The billions people like to talk about isn't even real cash. He couldn't use that to pay for anything. It's equity. It's illusory money. If he tried to sell the shares, the price would tank and they'd be worthless and not the billions claimed. Amazon's revenues are not his revenues. He can't spend that money directly.

His billions aren't non-existent, but they aren't money. They are power. The power to decide how Amazon acts as a business entity. He has alot of that.

Just like the communists did over their own industries. The "elite few" communists.

The only difference is that we can quantify Bezos' wealth, where as the numbers were hidden for the elite Soviet leaders and party members.

The substantive difference is that the means of production in USSR were publicly owned

"Public ownership" is a nonsense phrase. When I own a thing, it is mine. I can decide that no one can possess it, or that one person or another can possess it temporarily. I can give it as a gift permanently. I can charge money for it, or not. I can charge for it on a recurring basis, or not.

That's what ownership is. But there is no ghostly "public" which has a gigantic 100ft tall translucent human face that owns something with "public ownership". Instead, someone almost certainly not me ends up owning it, even if he or she can't use the word "own" without getting into trouble. That man or women gets to decide who possesses it temporarily or on what basis. They get to decide to dispatch it to another man or woman, who then owns it (but can't use the word "own). I can't even sell my supposed "share" in this, and be excluded from the public ownership of the thing (for indeed, who would want to buy it when they have their own public share of it, and having two shares gets them no more consideration?).

This man may have made promises that I can use it or can't on some schedule. But they can rescind those promises. In all cases, if they renege on the promises, they incur no significant penalty.

This "public ownership" seems to me to be nearly identical to "some other person not me owns it, and fuck me".

This allowed USSR to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, and education.

Tell that to the people excluded from the universities with coffin problems. Or the five families hot-bunking in shitty brutalist apartment buildings how they were lucky to have housing.

Lots of things allow all different sorts of non-communist systems to provide everyone with food. It's not that impressive in the 21st century to say "but they fed everyone".

and a retirement guarantee by 60.

With enough vodka rations to make sure only 1 in 50 collected on it.