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
Using Cis when using voice will always be confused with Sis, as in sister. That's gonna sound very interesting as a non-insult.
Yeah, my point exactly
I would love to know where that road leads.
"screw you, you were camping and I should have won that, cheater [long rant of slurs]"
"Yeah well I bet you're a cisgender. Cis. I bet you're cis"
"...what?"
How can it even be a slur? I don't get it. People may use gay or trans or as an insult. But that doesn't make it a slur right. So how this word can?
You're right to be confused, Elon's post is very silly on many levels, one of which being that considering a word to be mean doesn't make it a slur.
It can't and that's the joke here
Kids on xbox live are known to throw around slurs to win arguments, especially in cod. Sorry to have confused ya
I would be very interested in a plot graph mapping out the number of instances of transphobic rhetoric coming from Elon from before and after Grimes left him for Chelsea Manning.
Or his trans daughter changing her last name and basically telling him to go to hell.
Or his trans daughter changing her last name and disowning him. How shitty of a dad do you have to be for your kid to turn down that kind of inheritance?
I can't imagine what he did for that to happen. I've seen similar stories of kids disownning their billionare parents in countries where spousal abuse, demostic violenc, violence against kids and pologomy are allowed. but I never thought US laws allow you to be that shitty.
IIRC he actually did twat some vaguely transphobic things soon after that.
That's great grandma, now let's get you to the bottom of the ocean. (sadly not original content)
Is this how a right-wing, white man comes out?
Maybe he comes out as waste of human skin.
Mr. "Free speech absolutist" over here. LMFAO
He is absolutely free to say whatever nonsense he wants. Isn't that what free speech means? /s
HE is free to say and do whatever he wants, he owns the platform.
He literally made it so his posts appear before others because he was getting less likes than other people.
You on the other hand? You better say what musky boy likes.
That what I meant, lol. Shoud have added /s
He has some similarities to the libertarian morons
I think he just is one
Right, don't kill me for asking, but what's wrong with libertarianism? Or who are the libertarian morons? Honest question.
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)
Ah so right wing liberals?
It's supposed to be about individualism and individual freedom above all else, which is on par with the selfishness imo. Though many are conservatives that use the term to larp as apolitical.
Looking at this image, I would think that if I'm against authoritarianism, I'd be libertarian right? Yet, from my experience hearing from others who identify as libertarian, they all seem to be rather selfish as you say, or just very short-sighted. Is this a matter of the libertarian name being co-opted for something very different, or is that actually what it means to be libertarian?
Political compasses are a terribly misleading way of understanding political opinions IMHO, I wouldn't read too much into this.
Libertarians tend to be against state authority and all-in with private authority. They are market absolutists and see the expression of influence or power through market dynamics as not just OK but desired, since they consider markets to be meritocratic.
I would say you can be anti-authoritarian and pro-democracy (i.e. power is still exerted through a state authority, but the state is more evenly represented by the people)
The issue with libertarianism is that it only sees the abuse of power being that which is exercised through the state, but I think most people recognize that to be an incomplete picture.
Also libertarianism only exist in theory / ideals. No society exists under it in any meaningful way. Their ideas have never been tested to the point where the consequences of their action have not been clearly seen.
They want to think everything is black or white, but in reality it’s different shades of gray.
You can be against authorities limiting your freedom without thinking other people's rights also limit your freedom. It's a spectrum. I don't know what it actually means to be libertarian but it makes sense to me that the polar opposite of authoritanism is selfishness. I think it's the best to not take it to either extreme.
its a scale and individually on every topic you may be in a different quadrant
I consider myself liberal and it's not about my own freedoms (though I guess I'd like that too) but those of others. Believing others have a right to be non-binary as an easy example, or believe whatever they choose. I don't believe corporations in particular have a right to authority over the individual. Isn't that considered liberal?
Libertarians don't believe (or want) those kinds of rights, they mostly just want to be free to be assholes, and to not pay taxes.
The liberty of libertarians is NOT just a more radical version of the liberty of liberals.
👆 This encapsulates well 99% of German libertarians (and probably worldwide)
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.
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.
Libertarianism upholds whatever the current power structure is and offers no redress for those with less power. Free market libertarianism is just unchecked capitalism.
Have a look at the reading list for right libertarians at "The Political Compass" https://www.politicalcompass.org/libRightBooks and you will be be to come to your own view.
You might want to take the Political Compass test.
I took the compass test recently and it came pretty far left far libertarian. I'm just trying to figure out what that means which is partly why I'm asking the question. I don't dislike government run well and for the people. I don't dislike taxes at all and want them spent on the public (esp tax the rich), and I like people following the rules (when they are fair) and to being kind to eachother. But I think people should be free to do what they want if it doesn't impose on others' freedoms. I'm just trying to figure out my own political views and philosophies more deeply at the moment.
if you really want to figure out your own views, don't use some online test.
think about whats going on in the place you live. what do questions on a test have to do with that? go out and interact with the people around you and think and read about the stuff that comes up.
your political alignment has a lot more to do with the position you occupy in your place in space and time than a bunch of philosophical what ifs on a quiz.
Yeah I'm absolutely working on that as well. I am interested in it all from a hypothetical perspective too.
Have a look some of material on the reading list on Politician Compass for left libertarian it may help you.
When people talk about libertarians they are almost always talking about right wing (Ayn Rand) libertarians. They get attention because they are having direct impact on our current politics.
I feel I always have to remind people that "libertarians" don't have to be huge deregulators. A real libertarian is staunchly anti monopoly and DESIRES government intervention when there are issues with public goods (like pollution, competition, or safety) issues involved.
The right wing libertarians coopted the party sadly
That's great thank you.
People on these forums yearn to be subjects and cannot understand the desire to be left alone. Especially when it comes to topics that could not matter less.
Likely because they have the intellectual capacity of a child and thus need to be told what to do.
We need to come up with a slur for billionaires...
Billionaire is already a slur.
No one makes that much money without screwing over and abusing other people. There are no ethical billionaires.
I just call them oligarchs, which already has a negative connotation
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.
Parasites?
Leeches, vampires, parasites, oligarchs, scourges of the Earth, pure evil...
"rich fuckface"
There is one and you just used it
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?
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?
I think the free speech absolutist is full of bullshit, and there has to be ways to troll him, like redditors did with spez.
He's already DDOSing himself. What more could we do?
Silencing the speech of a bunch of sociologists is probably a bonus for him
I will never understand how the word cis or cisgender is a slur. If your a cisgender then you are literally a cisgender. I am a cisgender male, plane and simple
They consider themselves the "default" aka the only ones who are not "the others" and thus not wrong about everything up to and including existing.
They are also snowflakes who can't cope with their bigoted worldview being questioned in any way without playing the innocent martyr, so anything that implies that their perspective isn't the only legitimate one is considered viciously evil.
I take pride in Elon Musk thinking my existence is a slur.
Damn cisgenders, cissing around this damn thread. One tried to cis me out of my gender.
Reported for extreme prejudice /s
It's okay for me to call myself cisgender, because I've reclaimed the slur <s>
“Would you pass me the oar, cisgender Jim?”
This made me lol. Thank you for my first morning laugh.
Latin is hate speech :((((
Well, tbh, Romans were pretty xenophobic
Quite the opposite but ok
Xenophobic, not racist. They considered any non Roman or Greek culture to be uncivilized barbarian or at least weird and wrong and in need of romanization
It's a good thing free speech is legal on Twitter, huh, Elon?
sweet, now I have a slur for my dad when he calls me a faggot
Highly recommend checking the full article too, it's fantastic!
Big words coming from the wing nut who fucked over his “platform”.
No, it's not free speech until we're entirely unable to avoid hearing it, we bots stop trying to suppress his speech by calling him an elongated muskrat, and he freely demands payment to be seen by our own subscribers
Someone here doesn't understand free speech... But only he has a billion dollars, and here in America, our courts discovered that money is actually free speech
cissy
When I first saw this tweet days ago I thought it was a fake tweet. Just realized it was real.
Why is this asshole in charge of getting himself dressed in the morning? Not because he's incompetent (he is), but because he's clearly malevolent.
Elon is a fuck nugget.
This dude is a real fuckin tool.
congrats elon on coming out 🏳🌈🏳🌈🏳🌈🏳🌈🏳🌈
Poor Lord Farq-I mean Elon.
It's fair to consider them as slurs. If my memory serves me correctly, they are almost always used with a negative connotation or in a context describing "cis-people" as doing something bad. Elon is merely stating the obvious.
Interesting, I've only ever seen it mean "not trans"
Agreed. I've no idea what u/vegantomato@lemmy.world is talking about. I'm pretty sure I've personally never seen it used as a slur. What I've seen is people not knowing what it means and assuming it's one of them there evil genders, so maybe some people think it's meant as a slur, but imo that says more about their ignorance than the word itself.
your memory does not serve you correctly. Cis is a descriptor, it just means someone whose body and gender identity match. that's like saying straight is a slur.
May as well call white a slur because, if my memory serves me correctly, people who aren't white almost always use it with a negative connotation describing "white-people" as doing something bad.
/s
Idk, in relevant situations I have no problem calling myself cis. Just because a very small number of people are broadly hostile towards cis people doesn't make the word a slur. Cissy perhaps, but I still say meh to that because I just can't be bothered to be offended by it.
Agreed, but if Elon wants free speech he should allow the use of those slurs. Not that I think that wouldnt be chaotic, but Elon is being hypocritical here
Not sure if we have an agreed definition on slur, so I agree it can be used in an insulting context like a lot of words can be. But I doubt that you are qualified to say almost always, the internet and even just twitter is a big place. If you feel that way, that probably reflects more on the kinds of conversations you see or participate in (not an attack, just I personally don't like reading heated threads and don't use twitter)
Admittedly, it is anecdotal. But I'm clearly not alone in holding this sentiment. If enough people from varying backgrounds make these observations then it's fair to eventually consider these as slurs. I'm arguing that we have reached this point.
As a gamer, I will forever pray for him when someone tries to steal my jungle only to return to lane.
I don't know what these words actually mean and I don't like them.
The Latin prefix cis- , meaning "on this side of", which is the opposite of the prefix trans- . So a cisgender person is someone whose gender identity matches the sex assigned to them at birth - I.e. someone who is not transgender.
They're value neutral words and are useful words to have. For example, if I wanted to make the point that not everyone who cares about trans rights or gender issues are transgender, I could point to myself, as a cisgender woman.
After how he got fucked by Twitter and himself during negotiations, I totally lost respect for this him. A clown with money.
He never claimed to be an absolutist. He never planned in allowing things like vioent threats, for example.
And he's right about those terms - they are used as slurs to shut down discussion. It's a quick and easy way to belittle someone and trivialize their argument.
The only people who think cis is a slur are the ones who use trans as a slur.
They think any descriptor but "normal" is a slur because anyone who isn't cis, hetero, and white is seen as lesser by them.
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
Using Cis when using voice will always be confused with Sis, as in sister. That's gonna sound very interesting as a non-insult.
Yeah, my point exactly
I would love to know where that road leads.
"screw you, you were camping and I should have won that, cheater [long rant of slurs]" "Yeah well I bet you're a cisgender. Cis. I bet you're cis" "...what?"
How can it even be a slur? I don't get it. People may use gay or trans or as an insult. But that doesn't make it a slur right. So how this word can?
You're right to be confused, Elon's post is very silly on many levels, one of which being that considering a word to be mean doesn't make it a slur.
It can't and that's the joke here
Kids on xbox live are known to throw around slurs to win arguments, especially in cod. Sorry to have confused ya
I would be very interested in a plot graph mapping out the number of instances of transphobic rhetoric coming from Elon from before and after Grimes left him for Chelsea Manning.
Or his trans daughter changing her last name and basically telling him to go to hell.
Or his trans daughter changing her last name and disowning him. How shitty of a dad do you have to be for your kid to turn down that kind of inheritance?
I can't imagine what he did for that to happen. I've seen similar stories of kids disownning their billionare parents in countries where spousal abuse, demostic violenc, violence against kids and pologomy are allowed. but I never thought US laws allow you to be that shitty.
IIRC he actually did twat some vaguely transphobic things soon after that.
That's great grandma, now let's get you to the bottom of the ocean. (sadly not original content)
Is this how a right-wing, white man comes out?
Maybe he comes out as waste of human skin.
Mr. "Free speech absolutist" over here. LMFAO
He is absolutely free to say whatever nonsense he wants. Isn't that what free speech means? /s
HE is free to say and do whatever he wants, he owns the platform.
He literally made it so his posts appear before others because he was getting less likes than other people.
You on the other hand? You better say what musky boy likes.
That what I meant, lol. Shoud have added /s
He has some similarities to the libertarian morons
I think he just is one
Right, don't kill me for asking, but what's wrong with libertarianism? Or who are the libertarian morons? Honest question.
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)
Ah so right wing liberals?
It's supposed to be about individualism and individual freedom above all else, which is on par with the selfishness imo. Though many are conservatives that use the term to larp as apolitical.
Looking at this image, I would think that if I'm against authoritarianism, I'd be libertarian right? Yet, from my experience hearing from others who identify as libertarian, they all seem to be rather selfish as you say, or just very short-sighted. Is this a matter of the libertarian name being co-opted for something very different, or is that actually what it means to be libertarian?
Political compasses are a terribly misleading way of understanding political opinions IMHO, I wouldn't read too much into this.
Libertarians tend to be against state authority and all-in with private authority. They are market absolutists and see the expression of influence or power through market dynamics as not just OK but desired, since they consider markets to be meritocratic.
I would say you can be anti-authoritarian and pro-democracy (i.e. power is still exerted through a state authority, but the state is more evenly represented by the people)
The issue with libertarianism is that it only sees the abuse of power being that which is exercised through the state, but I think most people recognize that to be an incomplete picture.
Also libertarianism only exist in theory / ideals. No society exists under it in any meaningful way. Their ideas have never been tested to the point where the consequences of their action have not been clearly seen.
They want to think everything is black or white, but in reality it’s different shades of gray.
You can be against authorities limiting your freedom without thinking other people's rights also limit your freedom. It's a spectrum. I don't know what it actually means to be libertarian but it makes sense to me that the polar opposite of authoritanism is selfishness. I think it's the best to not take it to either extreme.
its a scale and individually on every topic you may be in a different quadrant
I consider myself liberal and it's not about my own freedoms (though I guess I'd like that too) but those of others. Believing others have a right to be non-binary as an easy example, or believe whatever they choose. I don't believe corporations in particular have a right to authority over the individual. Isn't that considered liberal?
Libertarians don't believe (or want) those kinds of rights, they mostly just want to be free to be assholes, and to not pay taxes.
The liberty of libertarians is NOT just a more radical version of the liberty of liberals.
👆 This encapsulates well 99% of German libertarians (and probably worldwide)
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.
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.
Libertarianism upholds whatever the current power structure is and offers no redress for those with less power. Free market libertarianism is just unchecked capitalism.
Have a look at the reading list for right libertarians at "The Political Compass" https://www.politicalcompass.org/libRightBooks and you will be be to come to your own view. You might want to take the Political Compass test.
I found this article on what happened when a town became a Libertarian experiment interesting - https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
I took the compass test recently and it came pretty far left far libertarian. I'm just trying to figure out what that means which is partly why I'm asking the question. I don't dislike government run well and for the people. I don't dislike taxes at all and want them spent on the public (esp tax the rich), and I like people following the rules (when they are fair) and to being kind to eachother. But I think people should be free to do what they want if it doesn't impose on others' freedoms. I'm just trying to figure out my own political views and philosophies more deeply at the moment.
if you really want to figure out your own views, don't use some online test.
think about whats going on in the place you live. what do questions on a test have to do with that? go out and interact with the people around you and think and read about the stuff that comes up.
your political alignment has a lot more to do with the position you occupy in your place in space and time than a bunch of philosophical what ifs on a quiz.
Yeah I'm absolutely working on that as well. I am interested in it all from a hypothetical perspective too.
Have a look some of material on the reading list on Politician Compass for left libertarian it may help you.
When people talk about libertarians they are almost always talking about right wing (Ayn Rand) libertarians. They get attention because they are having direct impact on our current politics.
I feel I always have to remind people that "libertarians" don't have to be huge deregulators. A real libertarian is staunchly anti monopoly and DESIRES government intervention when there are issues with public goods (like pollution, competition, or safety) issues involved.
The right wing libertarians coopted the party sadly
That's great thank you.
People on these forums yearn to be subjects and cannot understand the desire to be left alone. Especially when it comes to topics that could not matter less.
Likely because they have the intellectual capacity of a child and thus need to be told what to do.
We need to come up with a slur for billionaires...
Billionaire is already a slur.
No one makes that much money without screwing over and abusing other people. There are no ethical billionaires.
I just call them oligarchs, which already has a negative connotation
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.
Parasites?
Leeches, vampires, parasites, oligarchs, scourges of the Earth, pure evil...
"rich fuckface"
There is one and you just used it
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?
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?
I think the free speech absolutist is full of bullshit, and there has to be ways to troll him, like redditors did with spez.
He's already DDOSing himself. What more could we do?
Silencing the speech of a bunch of sociologists is probably a bonus for him
I will never understand how the word cis or cisgender is a slur. If your a cisgender then you are literally a cisgender. I am a cisgender male, plane and simple
They consider themselves the "default" aka the only ones who are not "the others" and thus not wrong about everything up to and including existing.
They are also snowflakes who can't cope with their bigoted worldview being questioned in any way without playing the innocent martyr, so anything that implies that their perspective isn't the only legitimate one is considered viciously evil.
Cimple as
I take pride in Elon Musk thinking my existence is a slur.
Damn cisgenders, cissing around this damn thread. One tried to cis me out of my gender.
Reported for extreme prejudice /s
It's okay for me to call myself cisgender, because I've reclaimed the slur <s>
“Would you pass me the oar, cisgender Jim?”
This made me lol. Thank you for my first morning laugh.
Latin is hate speech :((((
Well, tbh, Romans were pretty xenophobic
Quite the opposite but ok
Xenophobic, not racist. They considered any non Roman or Greek culture to be uncivilized barbarian or at least weird and wrong and in need of romanization
It's a good thing free speech is legal on Twitter, huh, Elon?
sweet, now I have a slur for my dad when he calls me a faggot
Highly recommend checking the full article too, it's fantastic!
https://hard-drive.net/hd/video-games/huge-news-for-gamers-elon-musk-has-invented-a-new-slur/
Oh my god that’s amazing thank you
What a fucking moron
Big words coming from the wing nut who fucked over his “platform”.
No, it's not free speech until we're entirely unable to avoid hearing it,
webots stop trying to suppress his speech by calling him an elongated muskrat, and he freely demands payment to be seen by our own subscribersSomeone here doesn't understand free speech... But only he has a billion dollars, and here in America, our courts discovered that money is actually free speech
cissy
When I first saw this tweet days ago I thought it was a fake tweet. Just realized it was real.
Why is this asshole in charge of getting himself dressed in the morning? Not because he's incompetent (he is), but because he's clearly malevolent.
Elon is a fuck nugget.
This dude is a real fuckin tool.
congrats elon on coming out 🏳🌈🏳🌈🏳🌈🏳🌈🏳🌈
Poor Lord Farq-I mean Elon.
It's fair to consider them as slurs. If my memory serves me correctly, they are almost always used with a negative connotation or in a context describing "cis-people" as doing something bad. Elon is merely stating the obvious.
Interesting, I've only ever seen it mean "not trans"
Agreed. I've no idea what u/vegantomato@lemmy.world is talking about. I'm pretty sure I've personally never seen it used as a slur. What I've seen is people not knowing what it means and assuming it's one of them there evil genders, so maybe some people think it's meant as a slur, but imo that says more about their ignorance than the word itself.
your memory does not serve you correctly. Cis is a descriptor, it just means someone whose body and gender identity match. that's like saying straight is a slur.
May as well call white a slur because, if my memory serves me correctly, people who aren't white almost always use it with a negative connotation describing "white-people" as doing something bad.
/s
Idk, in relevant situations I have no problem calling myself cis. Just because a very small number of people are broadly hostile towards cis people doesn't make the word a slur. Cissy perhaps, but I still say meh to that because I just can't be bothered to be offended by it.
Agreed, but if Elon wants free speech he should allow the use of those slurs. Not that I think that wouldnt be chaotic, but Elon is being hypocritical here
Not sure if we have an agreed definition on slur, so I agree it can be used in an insulting context like a lot of words can be. But I doubt that you are qualified to say almost always, the internet and even just twitter is a big place. If you feel that way, that probably reflects more on the kinds of conversations you see or participate in (not an attack, just I personally don't like reading heated threads and don't use twitter)
Admittedly, it is anecdotal. But I'm clearly not alone in holding this sentiment. If enough people from varying backgrounds make these observations then it's fair to eventually consider these as slurs. I'm arguing that we have reached this point.
As a gamer, I will forever pray for him when someone tries to steal my jungle only to return to lane.
I don't know what these words actually mean and I don't like them.
The Latin prefix cis- , meaning "on this side of", which is the opposite of the prefix trans- . So a cisgender person is someone whose gender identity matches the sex assigned to them at birth - I.e. someone who is not transgender.
They're value neutral words and are useful words to have. For example, if I wanted to make the point that not everyone who cares about trans rights or gender issues are transgender, I could point to myself, as a cisgender woman.
After how he got fucked by Twitter and himself during negotiations, I totally lost respect for this him. A clown with money.
He never claimed to be an absolutist. He never planned in allowing things like vioent threats, for example.
And he's right about those terms - they are used as slurs to shut down discussion. It's a quick and easy way to belittle someone and trivialize their argument.
The only people who think cis is a slur are the ones who use trans as a slur.
They think any descriptor but "normal" is a slur because anyone who isn't cis, hetero, and white is seen as lesser by them.
Here he is making that exact claim in 2022 before deleting it once it became inconvenient
blue check is a slur 😤
No.
Anyway, how do I report a comment?
Wait a second, this was posted a month ago and has no engagement but I'm seeing it here now?