cross-posted from: https://europe.pub/post/372863
cross-posted from: https://metawire.eu/post/61363
The right-wing billionaire’s platform has recently lost about 10 percent of its European user base.
Europe doesnt want federated services, they want censorship.
Saying that oil production lowers emissions by displacing coal will be called climate misinformation, saying immigration needs to be lower due to a housing crisis will be called hate speech, using Bitcoin instead of the digital euro will be called terrorist financing. They’re already arresting people who do something as benign as retweet things, its a slippery slope.
saying immigration needs to be lower due to a housing crisis will be called hate speech
Yeah, that’s kinda hateful. True, it really would make things easier for EU citizens if less people were using the limited housing. But it would make things harder for the immigrants. Putting citizens over immigrants is… xenophobia.
Why waste the government’s time solving the problem at poor people’s expense, when the government could instead tax rich people more to pay for housing?
If you had a zoo would you continue bringing in animals if they had no space left to live comfortably?
Likely you would call that inhumane, you wouldnt say they were being intolerant of the new animals if they did not.
People aren’t zoo animals.
So cram them into substandard housing because they deserve less rights than animals?
You’re not offering a tangible answer here, the argument is situational similarity, not ontological equivalence.
And you think telling immigrants they’re not allowed to enter the country gives them more rights?
Putting citizens over non-citizens is called being a government.
Xenophobia is the irrational fear of foreign. And fear in this context usually shows up in the form of hate.
Putting citizens first does not mean hating the rest. Being a citizen of a country means that your government should represent you and your interests. It’s only natural that it develops into benefits for citizens.
Xenophobia on a person level is when you see a person that you think is not part of your same origin, do you cross the street, or attack him or whatever. Of course this is not even close to being an exhaustive list.
Xenophobia on a country level is when you punish foreigners irrationally. Not letting foreigners into your country because you have a housing crisis is not irrational, it is a valid reason.
I find it hard to find examples of country-level xenophobia. Even if the act itself may seem xenophobic, the government may want to gain popular support of their xenophobic population, which would be a reason and thus non-xenophonic.
Of course, not being xenophobic does not mean it is good. For example Israel genociding Palestinians is horrible. But their reason is that having a neighbor that claims the same land as you do is problematic, and they figured if they just kill everyone the world will forget in 100-200 years (or less) while the land will be theirs for longer than that with no revels, since they genocided them. Of course, having a reason does not mean that it’s not many other bad things (in this case, genocidal, which is worse than xenophobic).
Being a citizen of a country means that your government should represent you and your interests.
I’m interested in everyone’s wellbeing. Also, the government should represent its citizens’ moral interests. It should teach them kindness by being an example.
Not letting foreigners into your country because you have a housing crisis is not irrational, it is a valid reason.
Not valid. It’s discrimination.
The results of an action being done for a reason being discriminatory does not make the reason invalid.
Almost any policy is discriminatory.
Taxing the rich more is discriminatory against the rich. Helping women out is discriminatory against the men. Ending segregation is discriminatory against people that don’t want be near people different to them. The list is endless.
I assume you agree with all 3 of those policies. Yet they are discriminatory. Those 3 policies are done because of very valid reasons.
There are very few policies that I’d say are not desceiminatory. Like universal basic income or universal healthcare. And even then, by your definition of discriminatory, those would be discriminatory. Since they would still discriminate against non-citizens.
There is no world where a person born in X country that has never left X country to receive income from a UBI policy of Y country. Unless X and Y countries have some sort of deal where that happens.
I don’t think that’s why we’re having this conversation. Seems like you’re talking about technicalities and I’m talking about values. I don’t think we can have a conversation like this.
This specific technicality is important for your point though.
I’m gonna explain my reasoning so you can choose whatever you want have a conversation about.
Your claim was that putting citizens above non-citizens is xenophobic.
My point is that putting citizens above non-citizens is a natural consequence of a state. And furthermore, that it is a good thing.
Xenophobia is widely regarded to be a bad thing and that we should avoid it.
If both of our statements are true. The natural conclusion is that we should have a stateless society. I don’t think that a stateless society is a good thing. Therefore I’m trying to find a flaw in the argument. I think that the flaw is that you are wrong. So I have to have a conversation with you about why I think you are wrong.
If you are wrong, it must mean one of these statements are wrong:
- Putting citizens above non-citizens is xenophobic.
- Putting citizens above non-citizens is a natural consequence of the state.
- Xenophobia is widely regarded to be a bad thing and we should avoid it.
Since 2/3 statements are made by me, of course I think they are true. So I’m going to argue about why the first one is wrong.
The only way to proof your statement to be wrong is by first defining what xenophobia is. Which you might call a technicality, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a conversation if we don’t first agree what the meaning of the words we use is.
After defining what xenophobia is, we have to figure out if the “equation” is true: “putting citizens above non-citizens” = “xenophobia”.
I’m a communist and I think we should have a stateless society.
Let me guess, they’re moving to Bluesky?
Or meta because its better? Like getting run over by a small car instead of a bus.
Ewww people actually use Threads? Last time I saw it, it was like LinkedIn 2.0 filled with sigma grindset “chase that bag” crap.
I’m.on Lemmy and mastodon. Anything else is pure sarcasm. I sarcastically browse for TV’s on Amazon. But will I buy? No. All have spyware on them, so no. I wouldn’t touch meta with a 300ft pole.
This is not a particularly relevant comment, but you reminded me of when I was a kid and a friend had a TV on a stand opposite her bunk-bed. She didn’t have a remote control, but she did have a long stick, and she was amazing at pressing the buttons from like 2m away. Proper life skill.
In my day you had to turn the knob. I made a geared motor adapter to change the channel remotely. DIY when I was 10.
Don’t go to BlueSky !!! They’re not better than X. They obey to the same leaders… MONEY, GREED, AND POWER. A few weeks ago they restricted 72 Turkish protesters the access to their BlueSky accounts on simple request of the Turkish Government. So, BlueSky cannot be trusted they will secure the accounts of their customers. If Trump would ask BlueSky to block all accounts of members who are against him, they’ll do it right away.
Make mastodon more accessible then.
Which accessibility standards does Mastodon break?
Oh boy, where do I even begin:
-
Federation. People have no idea what it is, which means that they have to familiarize themselves with all these technical concepts just to create an account.
-
Servers. Most mastodon servers are locked, and you have to petition the admins to let you in, which often implies waiting more than a day. In other sites, you can create an account in 5 seconds, so mastodon is at a disadvantage.
-
Lack of an algorithm. This implies people won’t see the content they like, which means they have to go and actively look for content. Most people don’t want to spend time doing that, they just want to log in, laugh at funny memes ans look at pretty pictures.
I’m pretty sure Mastodon is made of algorithms, mate
-
