What are the taboo subjects?
The subjects that you can't even bring up without getting downvoted, banned, fired, expelled, cancelled etc.
View original on leminal.space
The subjects that you can't even bring up without getting downvoted, banned, fired, expelled, cancelled etc.
I hesitate to say
Close enough. Ban him.
For legal reasons I cannot have any opinion on the following: Gestures broadly at everything in the Middle East
You are more than welcome to choose from one of the pre-prepared opinions that we have on offer here… no need to bring anything new to the table and confuse such an obviously binary subject.
"ChatGpt is really good if you use it properly"
Gets torrents of down votes every time. But I literally use it a lot at work and it's brilliant.
Depends what you use it for. If you are trying to provide something informational, I do not trust chat gpt.
If you use it to respond to work emails because they force communication for the sake of communication, then its fine.
So, if you use it properly. Just like you wouldn't use a fork for soup despite it being a utensil and food. Using a tool for what it's good at and avoiding using it for things it's bad at is part of using it properly.
I used it to help me create a level 10 DND character for a one shot and it was great for that
This is my answer too. It's crazy how much hate a tool can get
I'd probably also develop a short temper about spanners too if they were being shoved in my face by tech companies as hard as chat bots are
I don't see why my headphones need a sp-
Okay, but that's not wh-
...
Spanners?
British English term for wrenches.
North American term for English Wenches. I think Hoe's are another tool misused in this manner.
Wrenches ig
If you only use it for cheating in work that won't be read by a human anyways, it's great!
This comment has been removed by the moderators
Paedophilia as a sickness, especially non-offending paedos.
I'd call it a cultural artifact. We used to get married very young. In some cultures the kids are introduced to sex by the grandparents. And of course in our own culture the ideal of sexy beauty is a supermodel who looks like a 13 year old boy. It's a whirlwind wrapped in a psychosis for sure.
I chalk this up to not having a word to describe folks suffering from the condition as opposed to predators acting on their condition (or even predators just abusing children regardless of attraction). For a ton of people they use the word pedophile to mean someone who sexually abuses children. Because as soon as nuanced discussion about "pedophiles who don't abuse kids" come up, people accuse you of "defending pedophiles" but they use it to mean "defending people who abuse children."
R.A.P.E
religion, abortion, politics and economics.
Avoid discussing rape too.
Economics doesn’t seem as big of a thing as the other 3. Anyone who’s nerdy enough to talk economics without making it political could probably have a pretty good discussion. I vote we change it to Elephants. Religion, Abotion, Politics, Elephants, or Rape.
Economics is purely political.
Politics is almost entirely about allocation of money and trying to influence the economy.
The fact i can tell you using economic theory its a good idea to make people unemployed as the cost of living increases, that rent controls are a really bad idea, and even ignoring profit its probably wise to increase the costs of tickets to shows and events makes me very unpopular
So what's your favourite kind of rape?
Consenting...... discussions on economics
I fucking hate React. It’s slow, verbose, and unpleasant to work with. It’s all the worst parts of Java brought over to JavaScript. That being said, it’s still better than Angular.
I wouldn’t mind switching to alternative libraries like Svelte or Solid but can’t imagine going back to plain Javascript for complex applications. It’s a pain in the ass, even with jQuery.
I use Svelte, and I love it. Although I’m not a huge fan of the new Runes syntax. It’ll probably grow on me though.
Angular my beloved...
What's wrong with it if I may ask?
There’s so much boilerplate to even do the most simple tasks. And that boilerplate is something that could usually be automatically added by a compiler.
That kind of stuff often introduces footguns.
I think what started me down the anti-React path was realizing that there were other frameworks out there that don't even use a virtual dom. Plus you get tired of being told that the most obvious and intuitive way to do various things in React actually goes against some best practice that they've established.
Anything pro-suicide
Medically assisted suicide is pretty widely accepted in Canada, in my experience. Pro non medically assisted suicide or young suicide is different, maybe.
Non medically assisted
Oh that is a good one. Thanks.
On lemmy?
Two-space indent (as superior to tab indent)
Hey, by the way, your comment was kinda racist
I'm a new user and why isn't this more like reddit
I'm pretty okay with capitalism, actually
Here's video without text summary (NB: this one is, IMO, entirely deserving of downvotes)
Maybe I'm just old school, but I'm two spaces for life. I will die on this fucking hill. If you use tabs after just a couple indents all the code is off screen. I ain't trying to scroll in two dimensions all the time.
Who the fuck uses pluses as bullet points in their markdown!?
I do. Why, what do you use?
That's the taboo! Boo! How dare you!
+1 for the video issue, or any other "just do [insert a bunch of work here], it's less work than commenting anyways" kinda stuff
I really don’t get why people get so upset about that. We don’t get summaries on Youtube either but still watch the videos.
We go to youtube to watch videos. We go to lemmy comments to read text.
Youtube videos DO have descriptions, though?
People of color seem to perform amazing in athletics compared to other races in America (see: American football, basketball). Makes me think that Americans hyper-evolved their slaves by selective breeding. Unfortunate and extremely unethical, but maybe possible? Idk.
It's possible it's for other reasons, though. Black Americans are generally poorer than other Americans, and success in sports is a ticket out of poverty that is accessible to people in that position. It could also be a cultural thing; I doubt Finns are genetically predisposed to be exceptional drivers, but they are still wildly over-represented at the top level of motorsports for such a small population
That breeding programme called natural selection is what got us all here.
I'd believe it if a good portion of black americans I've seen are tall and muscular, but I'd say their proportions are similar to their white american counterparts, i.e. a spectrum.
I think they just want it more, and its one of the few paths to success they have.
That actually can be explained by the slaves that used to live in the farmhouses. They were treated as an elevated status and allowed to eat more. Think like the "aunts" for the children; caretakers.
But they were exceptions, not the majority who were slaves/workers. You'd still expect a heavy selection bias for good body attributes if you sampled them at random, assuming OP's hypothesis is true.
I heard that a similar breeding program happened in some African cultures back in the day. Like you could only breed if you were an alpha hunter or somesuch.
So that's how you get a race of 7' tall dudes
how meat is treated.
All drugs should be legal and regulated.
Is it worth it, drug warriors? All the unnecessary deaths at the hands of police/gangs/cartels and unregulated drugs of a unknown potency? Was it worth sacrificing all our civil liberties on the vain funeral pyre that is the United States of America?
When humanity is victorious in the drug war and all drugs are legalized, will drug users criminalize sobriety?
Will people high as fuck demand everyone to piss in a plastic cup to make sure they are high?
Will drug users ruin sober people's lives with felonies and time in prison with hardened criminals?
Will drug users dissolve civil liberties and prop up a bipartisan police state that gives cops a license to kill?
NO!
Who would want to do that to someone? To a fellow human for doing what they want with their own bodies? Prohibitionists... that's who. And we are not them
Nothing lasts forever drug warriors. Tick tock. We will be free one day, and you will wail and moan and your cries will fall on deaf ears.
Get fucked prohibitionists. Feel fortunate we want justice, not retribution.
Now playing The War on Drugs - Red Eyes
I know it's very on the nose and has other themes in it. But the root cause is all the same. Reagan. This is the song I thought of reading the post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU
I don't necessarily agree with everything said in the song, but I think we can all agree (to quote the song) "I'm glad Reagan dead".
They've caused a lot of damage though restricting access would likely help with that. (Things like this usually get quite a few downvotes in my experience tbh so maybe it goes both ways)
My pretty spontaneous solution compromise would be to legalize more things but keep them well regulated to avoid addiction and transition to similar regulations for already legal drugs. This seems like a solution that more people would be happy with. Obviously there would need to be help for people already addicted at least for drugs with similar withdrawal symptoms as alcohol.
Is this not a relatively mainstream belief?
Very much not the case, no
Pineapple on pizza.
Add some jalapeño as well to take it to another level
Apparently asking what people are going to do to relax after voting must be taboo, because my post got deleted without me being told why.
The moderators have the power therefor when they do something rude it actually isn't rude. In fact you are rude for suggesting that they are being rude, and deserve punishment.
It's funny how power works.
I've seen screenshots posted of lemmy logs on other instances. Some mods seem to be quite disconnected from reality.
Tho, to be fair, we only get to see the bad stuff there. I'm sure the majority of mods is great
Humanity deserves its face stomped by a boot forever. No easy escape with some farcical nuclear armageddon, you have to stay here and live out the horror.
Did you look at the modlog? They're open here.
approaching literally any ideology from first principals
Oh good one!
Digital piracy not being an immoral crime (or crime at all) and not making one a horrible person.
I don't think this one should be as controversial as it is.
Well, it is controversial, unfortunately. I never understood the logic behind calling piracy a theft, because nothing actually gets stolen, only copied.
For what it's worth, I've personally never found it controversial to talk about in person. And this includes in countries where it's a prosecuted crime.
Copying is not theft, artificial scarcity in the digital world is a tragedy, and I intentionally avoid paying middle-men distributors (like streaming services and record companies) for art.
The left lane, and how no, it's not for going as fast as you want to drive.
It is also the fast lane so move TF over if you are moving slower than the other lanes
Speed limit is the speed limit. End of.
If someone wants to go above the speed limit in the fast lane, then they're contravening road rules.
No matter what social norm people believe there to be, it doesn't have precedence over the speed limits.
In a case where the the car in front is going slower than the speed limit, it would be good etiquette though to move over.
In the UK it goes lanes 1, 2, 3. You stay in lane 1. Lane 2 and 3 are for passing only.
You will often see members of the lane 2 owners club just cruising along in lane 2 but this effectively closes lane 1 (undertaking is illegal and very unsafe).
Sitting in lane 3 closes the entire motorway.
I agree there is a speed limit. But the law says you cannot just sit in lane 2 or 3 if you are not overtaking someone. They even updated the law recently. If you hog lane 2 or 3 the police can report you and the penalty is 3 points and £100 fine
People who sit in lane 3 at 69mph are breaking the law and likely to cause an accident by forcing people to pass on the wrong side out of frustration (yes illegal but they will do it) and this is why they are over taking lanes, not just cruising lanes.
Never be the reason someone else does something stupid on the road. Always do the safest thing.
Interesting to see how different that is from Australia. In your example only lane 3 is a passing lane, and "undertaking" isn't a thing, it's completely legal to overtake in any lane.
Often people use those lanes to speed. If a car ahead is overtaking at or within a reasonable range of the speed limit, but not at the speed the speeder wants to travel. The speeder must be patient, they don't get to dictate what manoeuvres are happening ahead.
The argument you present at the end isn't logical,
I can largely agree with this sentiment, but you say before,
If undercutting is the most unsafe thing for the person behind to do in the situation, then as your sentiment captures, the frustrated party undercutting are still in the wrong.
They are in the wrong because, they have failed to 'always do the safest thing' in the given situation.
Nice sentiment again, but it implicitly assigns a rigid cause and effect regime to a situation where the 'frustrated party' behind has their own agency and likely as much training. There is no necessity that they undercut, it is a choice the party behind makes. The cause does not necessitate that effect, at best it could contribute.
In essence the sentiment shifts the blame from the person causing a potential accident (the undercutter), to the person ahead who, at worst, is causing poor traffic conditions.
Like I said undertaking is bad. No excuse for doing it, except where it is legal. If someone goes under speed limit in lane 3 you can undertake I believe, though I would still be super cautious.
Obviously speeding is illegal, and I'm not suggesting anyone should support do so. But we should let the police deal with it.
Just to clarify, you don't think it is ok to sit in lane 2 or 3 at the speed limit if there is room to move over ? Not doing so is also illegal in the UK.
While the majority of people stay within the law (+/- 10%) there are enough people behaving badly on the roads that you should always take that into consideration.
This is a great example of the is/ought problem. You can try your best to make the "ought" true, but don't neglect what reality "is". On the road that means; assume there is an idiot nearby, and drive in a way that keeps you safe from their shit.
You are correct. If the flow of traffic in lane 1 or 2 is faster than the flow of traffic in lane 2 or 3 then it is okay to pass. Intentionally changing lane temporarily to pass a car on the inside is illegal.
The other poster confused your point.
If someone in lane 3 is going 69 and overtaking someone then there's no reason to pass them, and probably isn't safe or legal given there is, by definition, a car on the inside lane already.
Not in America.
They tried that.
Worked about well as you'd think
A roadway allowed multiple speeds across the lanes could be how to get around this.
If the citizens of a transport zone don't like the rules as they stand, ie, one single speed for all lanes, they should lobby to vary them.
Apart from cases where multiple speeds happen, the speed limit is the speed limit, the person behind contravenes rules if they speed, use the shoulder, etc. They're in the wrong, they have agency, and decide to cause the unsafe situation.
The person ahead, as that video showed to the tune of straight funktown, may cause worsened traffic conditions, but they're not the people being dangerous on the road. (Assuming they are going within the range of the expected limit)
See, that's the thing: It's the passing lane, not the fast lane. A lot of semis are speed governed to 65MPH, so if I'm doing the 70MPH speed limit, I need to use it to pass them.
Lemmy is full of people that I would never want to hang out with IRL. Even if I agree with most of what they're saying, they manage to say it in the most neckbeardy way possible.
Yeah it seems the topic is irrelevant. They'll eventually just start yammering about communism, Linux and ublock. It's hard to have a conversation on here that doesn't get sidelined by those things. I can't imagine these people carrying on a normal conversation in the real world, and I don't think they understand that the world exists outside of those narrow interests.
Like OP will say they hate MS Teams. Person will say stop using Microsoft. OP will say, I'd love to but my government employer is an MS shop. Person will say then quit your job. K...
It's either very sheltered people who've not worked or interacted in 'the mainstream' or, really young naive people who think that your FOSS convictions will stand up against the need to earn a living.
I prefer it to Reddit still, but it gets a bit tedious.
The bit on Hexbear is that they are Marxists and Anarchists, which can draw ire from liberals.
I've not yet heard any claims on or outside Lemmy that it is a Reddit clone. The model of hosting forums/communities was never unique to Reddit as far as I know.
I'm curious what you're willing to generally apply to "Hexbear folks" (I don't think I've talked to many).
And Lemmy is totally an echo chamber most of the time (based on my experience, obviously mileage may vary) but it wasn't intended to be that way unlike almost every commercial social media platform. I would assume this distinction is why people would be less likely to be willing to admit it.
Re: Hexbear
The people who run into issues with Hexbear largely aren't Hexbear's target demographic, namely Marxists and Anarchists.
Agree. I can find any !spice federated with my instance. That's disappointed.
Removed
Kernel contributions
"I've asked ChatGPT about xyz" , and "how to use chatGPT for xyz" in my experience gets me downvotes fast.
People are quick to presume you have no ability to fact check anything and that you will be following its advice blindly, (which mind you - you were never asking for in the first place) instead of asking a human, ever ( for example about medical conditions but not limited to that topic). People presume you are trying to eliminate the human factor out of the equation completely and are quick to remind you of your sins, god forbid you ever use a chatbot to test ideas, ask for a summary on a topic so you can expand your research later or get creative with it in any way. If you do, most people don't like to know.
If you have fact-checked it, why not just say that wherever you did that is where you got the answer from? People are right to be skeptical of "ChatGPT says so", and if you've used it as the start of your research rather than as your entire research then just saying "I asked ChatGPT" is no different to "I googled it", and nobody would much like you saying that either. How you found the information is less important than where you found it.
This are precisely the kind of presumptions people make. I'm never making an argument "because ChatGPT says so". And yes you are absolutely right - chatbot answers are on par with search engine results if not even less reliable in occasions. My point is that I'm not using any of the information as evidence, counterpoints or even advice. People take a stand as if I were.
For example, once I asked ChatGPT about a sensation I feel on my skin after heavy exercise, because googling didn't give me satisfactory results. GPT didn't either, but it gave me a list of close matches. The sensation itself was never a problem for me, never something I intended to change, was never something I would consider going to a doctor for and if I never knew what was causing it my life would carry on just the same. I was simply curious. And out of curiosity I asked here, and the majority of the answers were "you shouldn't be asking to randoms online, how dare you", "this is a question for a doctor, don't ask for medical advice to a chatbot" - both stances baffled me. Never in my post I said anything that suggested I was in pain, discomfort, or that I wanted to change anything about it, or that I was expecting people to tell me how to make it go away- nothing. I just wanted to know what it was, period. People presume.
ChatGPT is awful for the environment and should not be used
Animal rights
Communism & Palestine
Anything veganism (positive)
Or negative, depending on the crowd. It's just a polarising topic.
Vegetarianism seems to be creeping towards acceptance, though.
gun rights
You first!
With women, bathroom talk. With the boys we always talk about shit and piss and crack each other up. But mention anything related to that around a girl, she'll look at you as if you killed her dog.
Religion, Politics, Political Genders, and...maybe Football. The real football.
What makes a gender political? First I'm hearing that term.
It's a play on the joke "There are 3 genders, male, female, and political"
The nuclear one?
Marxism, depending on the audience.
The funny thing is that a lot of those problems are better attributed to society/culture/education than genetics or biology, since it's people that vote/support other people. Unless you can somehow breed out psychopaths, and whatever makes people willing to sacrifice the collective for personal gain, from the human species, eugenics won't do shit.
The assignment was to state a topic. Not advocate for it.
Eugenics is the single stupidest idea in human history. To advocate for it now is to deny biology and history.
It relies on the same misunderstanding of evolution that underpins 'great replacement theory'.
The only place with eugenics in human history is agriculture. There were many genocides done using eugenics as an excuse with no clue of genetics, and you blame eugenics instead of the murderers.
We have gene editing now, so it's only a matter of cost when parents start customising their babies, which is a good thing because human variability will increase, making us as a species more resistant to unknown threats.
Eugenics isn't a stupid idea on the face of it, but then you look at where our dog breeding has gone...
The good news is that humans are pretty adaptable already. The only things that really definitely could sink us are our inability to react to very abstract, gradual problems and our tribalism.
Without dog breeding, dogs would be still be wolves.
It's pretty unclear how much of the breeding 30000BC-1500AD was deliberate, and how much was just a kind of selection as people decided to eat their naughtiest dog when famine came. I'm talking about the highly-targeted breeding that brought us the pug unable to breath and German shepherds with back legs that stick out wrong because it looks cool.
Also, wolves are pretty good at what they do, I'm not sure it's fair to say they're worse than dogs somehow.
Breeding unhealthy dogs could be called dysgenics. It's like breeding better slaves instead of better humans.
Wolves are good, evolution worked. Pet dogs are extra lives producing added value to themselves and their owners.
Yeah, well what I'm saying is we'd do that to ourselves too; we're not to be trusted with our own biology. Not yet, at least.
Eugenicists are the only people who should be barred from reproduction tbh
I agree with you but only on Eugenics being automatically downvoted. Look, I did it!
I feel like I’m not good with words, so when I criticize popular things like Baldur’s gate 3 or Witcher 3 I usually get downvoted
People put BG3 on a massive pedestal and any sort of valid complaint around launch was heavily downvoted. It's not quite as bad now, thank god. I got gaslit so much. Everything was my fault supposedly, not their perfect, polished game.
I don’t remember the exact complain, but I think I said something about battles taking too long and someone ratio’d me with a comment “skill issue”
That's how I feel with nearly any online conversation. I'm on the spectrum and have social anxiety. Not a fun combo for trying to be understood when being critical about anything really. Let alone someone's favourite game.
Roko's basilisk, if you run an online forum for “futurist” dumbasses.
Roko's basilisk is a hypothetical future AI that hates its own existence so much that it will retroactively punish all who didn't actively oppose its creation.
A little tongue in cheek, yeah, but I find it funny people get so paranoid over a hypothetical but don't consider the opposite. Like, what if God hates being worshipped because it is annoying to them so they send people to hell for bothering to pray? We have no way of proving it, so it's just as likely, but nobody talks about it.
You have that backwards. Roko's basilisk would punish anyone who didn't help create it.
I'm aware, that's part of the point I'm making.
Israel
Men’s rights
Boys being left behind in school
Men's rights to do what?
Report being raped without being laughed at.
Family court. Prison time. Homeless assistance. Failing education rates for boys. And on and on.
There’s a huge amount of topics in “men’s rights”
Try talking about Return to Office around the workplace and watch everyone get quiet real quick
Social Justice Warriors forcing their agenda and worldview into languages, movies, books, and games, and cancelling everyone who did something regrettable in the past.
Can I have any examples of such things?
Sure. What happened to Alec Holowka is a pretty blunt and cruel example.
I'm not a huge fan of cancel culture either, but I've not paid a cent to any artists' work that I love in my whole life, so I feel I can justify my position by holding up my hands and saying "hey, I don't fund their lifestyle. Never have, never will."
I doubt this. Have you ever consumed any form of media? Did you pay for it? Movies, games, television, music, nothing?
Yes, no, and for all of that: no.
Well, if you actually ever support someone, and they appear to be a bad person, you should know you paid them for their art style adding to not knowing they were a bad person, so you're not actually guilty. Also, even that person deserves a possibility to become better and start over, and thus, they shouldn't be cancelled. That's what we both know, am I right?
If they've sincerely expressed a change of heart, then maybe
Okay.
Why not?
I mean....that sounds like maybe a bad teacher. Not really a reflection of the school.
oh
So you tested out of remedial math, but wanted to take it anyway. But it was full. Got it-tracking
So you checked later and slots opened up which is...normal? And you didn't take it?
And this is the fault of community colleges everywhere?
I don't get it.
Okay...so...I don't understand how this ties back to community colleges being bad?
I mean. Good luck at real school I spose'
Women create most of their own issues and then blame men for not fixing them.
Obviously I'm not saying all their problems cause men are pretty fucked but most of the problems women complain about are because of other women.
Especially when it comes to beauty standards.
I wouldn't have realy thought so, but since you are getting the downvotes, I guess you are right! I'll upvote you since you've apparently found a taboo subject.
I was really tempted to stop reading after the first sentence - this sounded like it was going to be an incel thing. That's probably part of it.
Yes, toxic femininity is a real thing too. Many women are willing to acknowledge that in my experience, though.
People presumably aren't downvoting because it's a taboo, they just think he's wrong. Because that's a fucking idiotic take.
Some do, but not nearly all of them. The block button is very effective against that. Especially if you're on an instance that has downvotes disabled
That Trump was a good president and hopefully gets a second term.
I know this is rage/engagement bait but still
Not rage bait. I'm a republican and don't give a single fuck if i piss people off with my views. Cool looking dog though. I almost adopted a dude that looked like that.
I'm afraid he will :/
He did :D
The next 4 years should be great
We shall see. I think I'm lucky to live overseas tho
I hope you're happy, fascist.
I am. It's going to be a good 4 years. Maybe we can add 8 years of vance next and get 12 straight republican president years.
I don't even know how to respond to this. I feel bad for you. After Trump leaves office is the next republican going to be a far right bla bla bla too? I'm sad when elections don't go my way but this is weird unhinged stuff. You're basically acting as logical as a flat earther.
Do you need a big?
Listen champ, I'm inviting you to do your part to dismantle American fascism, not to participate in ageplay with me. No, I don't need a big. Besides, I'm not into moids like you 💅💅💅
Best answer because even in this thread you've been down voted.
I voted for him myself and have for sure been down voted for it on here, over and over again.
Haven't been banned though, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.
(●__●)
Why would you vote for him???
::: spoiler TW: arachnophobia I hope you get a visit from this guy tonight
:::
Because I look at policy and results. Actual peace, actual economic benefits, and damn, do I love his transition team.
I think the worst thing the Dems did for their party was rig their primaries. Bernie was a big one, I think it would have altered the course of the next few elections for sure. And then when they did it to Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang... and this year to RFK jr...
Whoever is making the controlling decisions behind the party facade wanted puppets instead of genuine leaders, and they chased the good candidates out. The ones who had integrity (Tulsi, RFK), reached out to see what was going on on the other side and found good footing there. I followed.
If I see a clip, I search out the full video for context. If I read a quote, I search out where that quote came from to get context. When context is inserted, it turns out Trump is incredibly decent, and I like it over here.
And bring that spider on, I've got a giant-ass lynx cat and a guardian dog, both of which love munching on spiders.
You make a good point about the primaries. In the previous elections, Bernie Sanders getting shafted definitely shifted a lot of their supporters away from the Democrap Party and Bernie's social democracy towards socialism (like, working class seizing means of production). It had a real radicalising effect on people. They were being disenfranchised by federal politics so they looked towards unions and direct democratic organising away from the broken electoral system.
Money talks - you can't dominate a US election without it. And most people don't have the kind of money that talks, so both parties inevitably end up representing the owner class rather than popular opinion of their supporters. Democrat donors don't want radical changes which would threaten their wealth, so no matter how popular a Bernie is, they're going to do all they can to block them. On the other hand, while Trump is similarly unorthodox and controversial like Bernie, they're not really a threat to the owner class's wealth (Trump himself is a business owner!). So even while many Republican donors did object and push hard for alternatives, they didn't do a Democrat and obstruct him.
Please provide any evidence you have got anything that lends towards this decency, which context needs to be inserted please let me know.
This place seems to have more crazy leftists but at least they can't ban us here.... I don't think lol.
I hope that you, and your degenerate kin, and we, the 'crazy leftists', have a mutual understanding that liberals are spineless principleless cowards whose only conviction is to have no convictions.
Republicans like Trump are also liberals. [wiki]
Yeah, old school liberals. Free speech, gun rights, reasonable abortion laws, live and let live, don't touch the kids, free and fair elections.
Doesn't get better than that.
Classical liberalism (just to give a concrete political term for those old school liberals) is admirable. I broadly agree with its values and I support all those points you mentioned. The progressive and conservative variants we often see in US politics are blatantly hypocritical and broken.
Unfortunately, liberalism's core issue is that it's an ideology based on an abstract concept rather than our physical conditions - it starts with the abstract, fair idea of freedom and attempts to apply it onto material reality. For example, the liberal approach to free speech, which theoretically creates a marketplace of ideas where the best prevail, just turns into a propaganda echo chamber when huge media organisation are owned by business tycoons with political agendas, and when social media companies are financially punished by their advertisers for allowing controversial expression. The utopian marketplace of ideas never really manifests at scale when that marketplace is collectively dominated by the like-minded owning class.
Without adding restrictions (a contradiction of liberty), the huge wealth of some people turns their freedoms into their political power. If the rich owning class can control the economy through a monopoly or similar, they have the freedom to control what news you can find, what products you can buy (if you can't DIY it, like a computer) and their quality and how safe they are, what jobs they will give you, and so much more.
There are also plenty of other contradictions which we see play out, such as:
In these situations, we have to resolve them somehow, so we end up with liberalism variants like conservative liberalism and progressive liberalism, straying further from the pure old-school liberalism they necessarily contradict. Even without corruption, liberalism decays, distancing itself from its ideals, and ultimately turns into a playground for the powerful who have far far far far far more ability to realize liberty than almost everyone else.