• Rose@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah, its not a slur until the kids on xbox live start using it

    But they won’t. Calling someone cis as an insult online doesnt have the same impact

    • Teon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Using Cis when using voice will always be confused with Sis, as in sister. That’s gonna sound very interesting as a non-insult.

  • Ignacio [he/him]@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In my country (Spain) there is an organization called “Centre for Sociological Research”, which in Spanish it’s called “Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas” (best known as CIS).

    So, is that name also a slur, according to the free speech absolutist? What about politicians and journalists who talk about its surveys?

    • Maeqa@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Elon is too busy being angry at trans people to see all this nuance you’re just throwing out there. You think he has time to consider what people are saying or that other people have thoughts and feelings?

    • Elkenders@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right, don’t kill me for asking, but what’s wrong with libertarianism? Or who are the libertarian morons? Honest question.

      • albert180@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Selfish idiots who want to earn all advantages of society but don’t want to contribute anything. (Like Musk, who was a subsidy queen for years, but has suddenly discovered his love for a minimal state, or David Sacks, also a big fan of libertarianism, except when in dire need for a bailout from Silicon Valley Bank)

      • Djeece@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It sounds absolutely great in theory, but in practice it could never work.

        Say I want to build a house: As a society, we’ve come up with mandatory building codes that tell me how to build a house that’s going to be safe for everyone.

        Suppose we got rid of this regulation for libertarianism’s sake.

        Most people would still build to code because that’s just the smart thing to do but a small proportion of people would build it the cheapest way possible because it is now their god-given right to do so.

        When that house inevitably fails at the worst possible time, I don’t care too much about what happens to the guy himself. He understood the risk and did it anyways. But in a worst case scenario, he could’ve been hosting a kids party that day or something.

        Now apply this analogy to… Basically any regulation you’d want to get rid of.

        It’s kind of always a balancing act between stopping people from killing each other from sheer stupidity, and letting them do and say whatever the fuck they want when they’re between their own four walls, and pure libertarianism doesn’t allow for that.

        • IriYan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          1st of all globally libertarian is a specific mode with the anarchist movement, definitely anti-capitalist and anti-inequality of any sort (economic or political). What the FBI fabricated a pseudo ideology full of contradictions and sold it/financed it as libertarianism since the 50s (part of their counter-movement anti-communism enterprise which some of it was later banned in court) and spilled over to 3-4 other English speaking nations, has nothing at all to do with libertarianism (left libertarianism or libertarian socialist are also fake tags admitted by passive people that wanted to distance themselves from this “disease”. Anarcho-capitalism is equally a pseudo ideology. The rest of the world just laughs at the immaturity of the English speaking people shifting tags around to contradictory things because they are “pop”. The US effort to redefine a century and a half of political philosophy tradition to serve its own internal governmental pathology is purely a laughing matter for the world. Immature people develop immature movements. Or should I say people who refuse to read more than a page at a time can go out on social media and speak as theoretical authorities.

          Libertarianism is well documented for a century and a half, it doesn’t need US fed propaganda and social media to defend itself. Pathetic UK monkeys seeing the US propaganda and reproducing it like good pups, have also fallen for this anarcho-capitalist/libertarian construct for the mentally challenged.

          The one thing libertarians are known for is the proposal for class and social organization, to organize under certain minimal principles that ensure and protect the absolute equality of its members. And for communities (either work or living communities) to accept one and only one authority, of their collective organization and assembly, their collective decisions, on which they are free to participate and whose decisions only affect those who are part of it. That and rational communication within the assembly because individual leaps into the supernatural and metaphysical can only develop to collective chaos. So before entering the assembly you can leave your personal individualistic philosophy at the front door basket and pick it up on your way out.

          Now, you want to build a house, within a libertarian community, other than your own labor and physical technical abilities, to house yourself, you need resources (tools and supplies, metaphysics you can add on your own to your own house, see if some entity through preyer holds the beams up on top of your head). The available resources are those that are collectively available to the community, whether in shortage or abundance it is a communal problem to determine, One thing will be for sure, if there is shortage you can’t have more than your share because that will prevent someone else from also building a needed house. Fortunately, since the libertarian uprising there is no market, no industrial market you can get supplies, You have what the community has.

          You must be building that house for yourself, not to rent or exploit other people by it, correct? I don’t see why any libertarian community would have a problem with it.

          In theory, in practice I suspect that a true libertarian community helps as a community everyone to build a house and expect everyone to be helping you, not because it is a law or a decision of the assembly to do so, but as part of solidarity and the realization that shelter, food, health care, education, entertainment, are all human necessities and the community is founded in providing all this for the community.

          Does everyone get to have the same house, just as big, or just as complex, it is not up to theoretical or ideological criteria to determine, that would have been anti-libertarian, to have some mora/ideological authority to enforce an agenda on the community. It is simply up to the community to decide. If all one needs is a shady room, or a basement, to sit and play cello in their free time, why oppose it. If one needs a room and a kitchen and a small pad to raise spices and herbs and cook funky things, why not. Now if one wants to build a motorcycle that does 350km/h and we have no raw titanium and machining facilities to make valves for it, I am sure the community will have their objections to prostituting collectively just to get you those much needed 16 valves.

          So, libertarianism is not for all, it is for those who are in need to end their exploitation (economic) and oppression (political), whether that is by boss, parent, spouce, teacher, cop, those who feel it know who they will be liberated from. The rest are only worried about losing luxuries and toys during a possible transition to an eggalitarian social organization. They are not ready because they benefit from capitalism, Fortunately they are a small minority in N/W Europe, N.America, Japan, HK, Australia/NZ and a handful of urban centers elsewhere where either intense industrialization is controlled by them or extraction of tremendous amounts of raw materials in high demand by industry (oil minerals etc.). The rest of the world is happy to be able to grow beans, rice, corn and eat it too without been treated as slaves.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And also is completely accurate. Mainstream media, mainstream politicians and others who are members of the big club want you to think that only Eastern Europe and parts of Asia (not the parts they have lucrative business with) are mostly controlled by a few rich people.

        The reality is that the US has more than a third of the world’s billionaires in spite of having only 5% of the population and those billionaires and the rest of the. 1% ABSOLUTELY are oligarchs that control the country much more than any elected officials.