this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
74 points (95.1% liked)

Slop.

845 readers
492 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s hard to tell what your actual position is.

Have you ever tried asking? Or is pontificating your only mode?

Why are you sitting on your ass commenting from devices and exchanging data with servers hosted in data centers so that others get dopamine hits from staying engaged on their devices that exchange data with servers hosted in data centers?

Great, we've reached "sent from your iPhone" discourse.

You do what is reasonable and practical. Having a phone is a pretty essential requirement to participating in society, it would require a significant amount of effort to give it up and would interfere with my ability to share and promote ideas and to communicate and organize with people. The same is not true of a Hershey bar.

This is the right place for moral reasoning!

This strikes me as just deceptive and opportunistic. You're trying to make other people care about something that you only care about as an excuse.

And telling individual people that they are personally morally failing and thus unwelcome and impure because they purchase a few dollars worth of chocolates a month from the retail end of a global supply chain that was built up over several centuries might not be the most effective path to bringing about that world.

And telling people that they are personally morally failing for actually caring instead of pretending to care and thus "idealist" and "moralizing" and unwelcome probably isn't the most effective path to that either.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I am not telling you that you are morally failing. I am telling you that you are materially failing. If you put moral valence on that, that's on you. I don't think you're a bad person. I think you're good person with ineffective behaviors and incorrect ideas. Do you think I am a good person with ineffective behaviors and incorrect ideas, or do you think I am a bad person?

[–] meatcringe@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Them: we should improve society somewhat You: why are you moralizing at me?

We get it. We need to meet people where they are, we can't just go in guns blazing. This does not absolve us of our responsibility to move the masses towards global solidarity. To think otherwise is tailism.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Them: "You must stop buying chocolates that have child labor in their supply chain and if you don't you are literally supporting child labor."

Me: "Not only is this communication not effective and convincing a person, even if it was effective the results would not improve society because you are addressing the wrong leverage point and moving a single person every time to browbeat someone will never result in liberation"

We of course need to move the masses towards global solidarity. That comes from putting in real effort to build relationships, not attack the moral character of strangers.

[–] meatcringe@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago

At what point did anyone in this thread attack the moral character of strangers?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have no idea whether you're a good or bad person. I think you are promoting ineffective behaviors and incorrect ideas.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Fair and well met.