Do you unironically believe Martin Luther King Jr. wanted Barry Goldwater to win when he increased his civil rights protest organizing in defiance of Lyndon B Johnson during the lead up to the 1964 presidential election?

[Image Description: Anakin Skywalker on Lava Planet, block-face text “If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy”]

Black Lives Matter’s criticisms of Kamala’s selection apply to more than the present moment. It’s a principled argument against the anti-democratic nature of the Democratic Party. This didn’t start with Kamala’s ascension or when Joe Biden was handed the nomination without significant opposition, but has been a feature of the Democrats’ playbook for a long time.

A party that positions itself as the defender of Democracy undermines and weakens its authority when its own party structures cynically undermine and sideline popular participation.

I disagree with that characterization.

That’s correct, Caroline Kwan is not a TERF. The TERFs referred to in the title are the ones ‘protecting a very specific idea of what a woman is’

The only error is that someone else didn’t post it in a more timely manner. I admire Black Lives Matter, and I enjoy signal boosting their voices. I think they have good ideas, the kind that deserve to be discussed in forums full of thinking people. The message from this statement is timeless, and I think you might benefit from reading it.

You can prevent this from happening in the future by following BLM’s media accounts and posting their relevant statements before I do.

I’m a leftist with a long history of supporting healthy discussion on the Threadiverse, @millie; you can easily review it by reading my post and comment history. And I’m disappointed you would assume bad faith when we just had a similar interaction last month, when you were accusing people who criticized this same weakness in the Democratic party of being bad faith actors. This was back when the defense was being used to prop up Joe Biden as the candidate after the debate that revealed his mental decline. I had hoped you might gain more appreciation of the value of dissent from that event.

Do you think it was a mistake to listen to dissent and for Joe Biden to step down?

Which is it?

Both. I didn’t see the date, and also I like to pretend that the left is diverse and is capable of criticizing the Democratic party.

Is there a method where BLM could publicly raise concerns about the Democrats’ process that you wouldn’t characterize as ‘the left fighting the left’?

Your comments are giving an engagement boost to a post giving free ads and exposure to the Olympics and Italian fascists.

If you don’t have the freedom to cover your face at a political protest, the country you are protesting in is not free.

Is there a clear business model? It seems like the goal is to make it free for collectives and non-profit use, and then collect fees from for-profit companies. The CC-NC-SA has an obvious business case because not everyone has the capability to set up and use the software, but it’s popularity can create a secondary market for people to pay for other people to host it for them -> leading to revenue. Basically the Freeware model with the addition of the source being open. With art it creates a carve-out for copyright that allows free sharing, but once the art is used in a commercial context, the artist should get a cut of the revenue.

But if there’s a secondary market of collectives providing that service without the need to pay, wouldn’t they out-compete a privately owned service that pays for the software? Why would a privately owned service fund a software company that doesn’t want them to exist? Likewise, why would a corporation use an artist’s work that was shared under this license?

Succinct and eloquent.

I think this would be a difficult sell, in part because not only would you need to write ironclad terms, you’ve need a whole new organization to enforce it. I don’t think the Free Software Foundation would endorse it.

I could see a similar thing working with art and literature though - Creative Commons already has a non-commercial license, so creating a new category of restricted artistic license doesn’t seem too far off from what they’ve already endorsed.

No one is illegal!

Here’s a quick summary of some of the more objectionable points you appear to be making in your comment. Let me know if I got any of this wrong.

• Auzy is accusing me of lying and being a secret GOP supporter. This is not conspiracist thinking, because they’re only accusing one person of lying, and a conspiracy involves multiple people.

• Auzy is wrong in accusing me of being deceptive, but I am instead an emotional person who can’t rationally comprehend the articles that I share, and am just not capable of preventing myself from being manipulated by deceptive journalists.

• The article Since Feeding the Homeless Is Illegal, Activists Carry AR-15s to Give Out Food, Supplies is fundamentally an advertisement for guns, in part because it uses the term “AR-15s” in the title, which is a Colt product.

• In order to make a post, one needs to personally endorse both the source and content, because by sharing the wrong articles that you found interesting that other people might like to discuss here on this forum, you may be promoting capitalism. Sharing unique reports from a small political fringe site like thefreethoughtproject.com that are unreported in other sources is a form of promoting capitalism, while in general sharing journalism from large news corporations like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times does not promote capitalism.

I’ll take that as an admission that you don’t think my articles are ‘deceptive’

Are you now saying that by accusing me of being ‘pro GOP’ that Auzy is not engaging in conspiracist thinking?

Three times as many people seem to disbelieve your intentions as believe them.

That’s not how Lemmy voting works. “Shooting the messenger” is the phenomenon where people get information that contradicts their desired reality, and are more likely to not only reject it outright, but worse, punish the sources delivering the message. There may also be some in-group vs out-group bias going on here.

@Auzy is the only one who is claiming that the feed the homeless article was “pretending to be feel good news” - that’s obviously not the case. Maybe you should elaborate on why you think a particular article is deceptive, and how you hold other Beeple’s posts to the same standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_(politics)

“pro GOP posts masquerading as something else”

“pro gun advert pretending to be feel good news”