lol

When your movement centers around not having “society” tell you whats right and wrong and you can do whatever you want, people who don’t like being told the things they like are bad will be drawn to it.

Most so-called “Libertarians” are Republicans who want to smoke weed

Not sure if this has anything to do with it, but Lemmy.ml is moderated by communists, and I don’t think they get along with libertarians.

There are different ideologies that fall within the broad spectrum of “Libertarianism” as it is used in America. They are all bad, but some are “misguided but good at heart” (and better than, say, a Democratic-establishment Liberal) while others are “you have to be a literal sociopath to believe this”. The latter tend to get signal-boosted more because they get funding from right-wing foundations and think-tanks.

Most ordinary people who identify as “Libertarians” would be Socialists of some sort but have been brainwashed by Capitalist propaganda that Socialism is bad and evil and is also when the government does stuff, and the government is bad, so Socialism is bad.

The logical extreme of Libertarian thought is Anarcho-Capitalism: the belief in the Non-Aggression Principle (that no-one should ever restrict another’s freedoms, including their freedom to use their private property as they see fit), that coercion does not exist, contracts are sacrosanct, and that people have an absolute right to control what happens with the things that they own. This of course runs contrary to things like “Worker’s Rights” or “Anti-Discrimination Laws”; and is also where a lot of the Pedophilia stuff comes from, since children are either (1). property of their parents (in which case the parents, as their owners, should be allowed to abuse or prostitute them) or (2). free actors in society (in which case they should be allowed to give consent or prostitute themselves). The ultimate issue with Anarcho-Capitalism is that its logical endpoint is Neo-Feudalism: if you own land, you have the right to dictate what the people living on that land are allowed to do while living there; there are no Tenant’s Rights (in fact, like I said before, the only right you have under Anarcho-Capitalism is your freedom to act as you please on your own property, with your own property, without interference from others). Thus, Landlords become a new sort of feudal government, with complete power over their fiefdoms.

There’s also Randian Objectivism, which is a rationalist philosophy whose main influence on modern Libertarianism is the Randian Ubermensch: living your life independently, to the pursuit of your own happiness (and only your own happiness), without care for the social rules of society at large. Batman’s creators have cited Randian Objectivism as a major influence; Batman is the archetypical Randian Ubermensch: wealthy, white, egotistical, and living outside of society and its rules and laws (while benefiting from them).

There are more moderate forms of Libertarianism that believe in things like Net Neutrality (that the internet, like a public service, should treat all traffic through it equally, not giving preference to certain sites or companies) or the Right to Repair (the right to repair something you own personally, rather than having to take it to a licensed repairman). It’s important to note that both of these run contrary to Anarcho-Capitalism: under Anarcho-Capitalism, an ISP has a right to treat traffic through its tubes however it sees fit; and a company can lease its products with whatever anti-repair clauses it wishes. There’s also Right to Roam, which is very popular in Europe (but less so in the states), the idea that you should be allowed to travel through private land, as long as you do not mistreat it.

Some are just young and/or naive. If you don’t think past the surface it makes sense. It’s (American) conservativism with less hate. And it’s another tool to manipulate people into supporting lower taxes on the rich.

It’s appealing at a glance because the first thing kids notice about it is that you don’t have to hate gays for no reason.

They are fine with removing regulations because “the market” will balance it out

I dont think there is a requirement for them to be “bad” but theres a lot of them who are and the ideolog kinda supports being a douche.

It’s hard to answer this question because libertarians and socialists are like water and oil. That said, things like the end of intellectual property and abolition of the police are points that I see both sides agreeing (there might be more points, but I can’t remember right now).

The problem is that aside from a few of the original writers (like Mises or Hayek, examples from the top of my head), most libertarians out there on par, or even more than tankies in their fanatism. But maybe that’s a problem with most big movements anyway.

Imagine basing your entire perception of a person based on a single group identity that they have, it turns a 3D person into 2D cutouts of themselves and reduces their opinions and belief’s to the group identity and not the persons identity.
(It also dehumanizes them making it trivial to justify uncivil behavior.)
Never judge a person under normal circumstances based on their group as you don’t know their reason for their belief. (Provided that their not a extremist.)
Think for yourself and be careful to understand another’s POV before making a judgment about them as a person.

No. Most people are decent people, even the people with dumb political ideas.

Not really. Internet has distorted the reality. I have talked with lots of them in person and online outside of social network that are all day talking about politics and nothing to do what memes make it seem. Also if you look at right wing memes you will find they are accusing left wing people to be pedos(but same applies). In resume, memes like that don’t represent reality, its just a “cultural war” that is used to throw shit against the “other side”.

Thank you for this integrity and wisdom. You win the Internet from long ago today! Lol

Yup pretty much, they wouldn’t have made the regulatory requirements, so they chose not to release in the EU yet (i.e. not blocked in the EU). GDPR “approval” might not be the best term, but that’s how I’ve seen it represented in tech articles so far.

The thing holding them back is sharing data cross app from what I’ve heard. Since Threads runs off Instagram accounts right now, but it’s still it’s own app, it’s sort of in a legal gray area, and given that they want to extend it to non-Instagram users as well it probably makes more sense to go for that first and then move for the EU release after they’ve made it fully GDPR compliant.

BEES?

@SneakyWaffles @jkure2 let them federate. I have nothing against that because it doesn’t take away the possibility to block them either on a federal level or to an individual level. If you don’t wanna see Thread’s content you can opt out at any time.

I like how versatile the fediverse is and I welcome other platforms.

“Against” isn’t really the right word, as you don’t really compete on the fediverse.

All the platforms on the fediverse work together by design, the introduction of more micro blogs is good for Mastodon and the rest; there’s already so many of them and you can talk to them through Mastodon, which is the way it should be.