Maybe Juan Carlos, because he abdicated to transition the government from dictatorship to democracy.

Right, and modern US liberalism isn’t general liberalism. Plus, those distinctly modern elements absent from general liberalism of active non-market interventions by the government to protect the market from failure, provide a safety net, provide access to education & healthcare, provide public services to reduce inequality, protect the environment, etc, are social departures from capitalism, are they not? That position aligns better with social democracy

a social, economic, and political philosophy within socialism

social democracy aims to strike a balance by advocating for a mixed market economy where capitalism is regulated to address inequalities through social welfare programs and supports private ownership with a strong emphasis on a well-regulated market

If anything, modern US liberalism conflicts more with your earlier assertion that

Liberalism is basically capitalism

Whereas general liberalism is largely indifferent to economic system, modern US liberalism favors a form of socialism.

Which liberalism lacks an essential position on, because it’s not an economic philosophy. Liberalism is essentially the position that individual human rights & liberties are fundamental. It can even combine with socialism.

Whatever disagreements you claim these philosophies have may be between particular variants you’re not specifying rather than their most general forms.

There are various kinds of socialism. Some “take care of themselves and neighbors” & some merely claim to.

One of the merely claims types is authoritarian socialism, which includes Marxism–Leninism.

Authoritarian socialism, or socialism from above, is an economic and political system supporting some form of socialist economics while rejecting political pluralism. As a term, it represents a set of economic-political systems describing themselves as “socialist” and rejecting the liberal-democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus, and freedom of expression, either due to fear of counter-revolution or as a means to socialist ends.

That ideology does not respect & protect inherent individual rights & liberties recognized since the Enlightenment. Authoritarian socialism is hated for abusing human rights, and it’s often incorrectly assumed that all socialism is authoritarian. That explains the hatred.

Kinds of socialism that respect & protect human rights do exist, however, and they have a better claim to a system of self & mutual care. There’s little reason to hate those.

Liberalism is basically capitalism

Liberalism isn’t an economic system. It’s a political & moral philosophy from the Enlightenment that holds governments exist for the people & authority is legitimate only when it protects inalienable/fundamental/inherent rights & liberties of individuals. The people have an inherent right to obtain a government with legitimate authority, and when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy.

Liberal governments can & do include some with social market economies (eg, social democracies in Europe).

Because your legislators aren’t morons? UK & EU pass or attempt to pass so dumb laws.

• UK Official Calls for Age Verification on VPNs to Prevent Porn Loophole
• Online porn showing choking to be made illegal, government says
• CHAT CONTROL 2.0 THROUGH THE BACK DOOR – Breyer warns: “The EU is playing us for fools – now they’re scanning our texts and banning teens!”
• German repression of political expression: live police suppressing pro-Palestinian protests as anti-semitic, raids & arrests over calling a politician pimmel, internet patrols penalizing vitriol, insults, & satirical images of politicians showing fake quotes
• UK repression of political expression: designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, arrest pro-Palestinian protesters, arrest someone over a social media post backing Palestine Action

Most democracies have judicial review & UK is in the wierdo club.

Quick, let’s list all idiotic euphemisms due to social media. We already have

• unalive

What is the first thing you said to me? You do not know what you are saying, but it feels right to you well that is because you are accusing people of things you are guilty of. You’re basic and transparent, try logic.

Buddy, you need to look up ad hominem fallacy because there’s nothing to debate there. You’re just making a fool of yourself.

So you are trying to ague they went to another country

England is another country from England?

active government building

Filming permits?

how detail oriented film makers are

Do you need explained that different people aren’t the same person?

the connection between the characters and their location

A pre-existing building whose floor they used unmodified. Did they search every building in existence until they found one with a star on the floor? Implausible. Unless you have credible evidence, your claim is unsubstantiated speculation that you only accept due to motivated reasoning & confirmation bias.

Furthermore, no link or references to shit to substantiate anything you wrote: ipse dixit fallacy. You were rightly criticized for lacking a valid argument and this is no different. Respect logic & argue better.

fuckwit. You are either incredibly stupid

Again with the ad hominem fallacy: try logic.

I don’t expect you to acknowledge when you are wrong.

No, that’s definitely you. Your video has nothing to do with your particular claim that the star on the floor is a Star of David: digression fallacy.

We aren’t talking about antisemitism, we’re talking about your insistence on that claim despite failure to substantiate it, disclosure that the design belongs to an actual building unrelated to Judaism, the implausibility that its appearance in the film is due to an author who didn’t direct the film & whose book likely didn’t specify that detail. It’s classic motivated reasoning & confirmation bias drawing hasty conclusions lacking adequate support.

We aren’t disputing your other claims. We’re disputing this one & criticizing your poor reasoning & lack of integrity to admit it’s unsupported. Like the typical discourse at lemmy.

Dumbass

Abusive ad hominem fallacy.

look around you

Did you? All you have are unsubstantiated claims, inability to substantiate them, and lack of integrity to admit you can’t. Typical for people on here.

you people

Yep, the terminally misinformed (like you) are people. Too many of those on here.

The more I read about state capitalism, the vaguer it seems.

an economic system where the government plays a central role by managing key industries and manipulating market outcomes

is the most coherent definition I can find. Examples

• the centrally planned, command economy of the USSR with wage labor
• the liberalized market economy of the PRC with some large state industries, a strong private sector, foreign investment, market-based trade
• the Norwegian economy with state ownership of the oil industry & some companies and ownership stake in large, publicly traded companies
• United States with its publicly funded bailouts & recent state ownership stake in some publicly traded companies.

Some economists argued it’s merely state socialism & planned economy relabeled.

Whatever it is, communist states like USSR & China have long claimed they’re transitional.

Communism is by definition a stateless, classless society.

No, that’s a communist society, a purely unsubstantiated, speculative, moneyless, post-scarcity utopia that has never once been realized & probably never will. Belongs in the realm of mythology.

Communism is the ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society. Much like Christianity with the 2nd coming of Christ, adherents insist it’ll happen someday inevitably. No possible way their great prophet Marx was wrong.

A communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state) is a government consisting of a socialist state following Marxist–Leninist political philosophy with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve a communist society. Unfortunately, while belief systems like Judaism had the sense to warn adherents against trying to force their dream utopia prematurely, Marx lacked such sense to urge the crazies against it.

Regardless, the overzealous failures here are some strain of communist: they follow the ideology.

They’re rarely here because they get quickly defederated.

I think it has more to do with their not wanting to be here & online communities voluntarily segregating themselves into their respective ideologies^[1].

Defederation is not an effective control against the individuals you want to contain. As we can see with tankies, their annoying conduct rarely rises to the level to result in bans from the unblocked instances they join.

As for spreading their poison, I don’t think people are mindless automatons who must become awful when exposed to offensive rhetoric all day. If mere exposure is all it takes, then they probably lacked decent principles. Sheltering a fragile position that disintegrates at the slightest challenge due to ignorance is a weak strategy that doesn’t build a firm, reliable foundation.

A better solution is to develop a sturdier position on principles everyone is keenly familiar with to effectively defend. They acquire that familiarity through observed & practiced success to defeat challenges. The best answer to speech we dislike is better speech that condemns & challenges it. People need robust principles to do that & acquire them by doing so.

You’re a cunt.

Are you an authority on cunts? Ad hominem fallacy.

Answer the questions from before. My answers: it does not. Reddit stretched the concept of harassment to include public transparency, freedom of information, and nuisances^[1] nowhere near legal standards for harassment, and no one should welcome misguided efforts to bring that shitty moderation culture^[2] to lemmy.

The fact is OP did not request any attacks by merely showing public information, the public is entitled to public information, OP is no more responsible for misconduct anyone else chooses to commit than the public hosts of the original information^[3], reporting actual abuse is the proper way to handle such incidental misconduct, and you know that.

Ergo, you’re trying to dismiss valid

There is no valid suppression of public information or its references.

they’re about a man

That’s unfounded speculation & irrelevant.

lynched

Impossible to do with words over the internet. Overdramatic.

Your double standards are as apparent as your gross misandry.

No double standard^[4]. Strawman fallacy.

Have you asked OP to link the comment in the post text?

Yes: that would certainly reveal the names.

There’s gotta be a balance between accessibility and preventing harassment.

Easy: don’t harass. There are better controls on harassment by others than breaking accessibility & all the other considerations (usability, web connectivity, authenticity, searchability, fault tolerance) like reporting abuses.

Transcripts still break web connectivity (to explore context) & authenticity.

Your approach requests OP conduct/sustain definite harm^[1] to speculatively prevent indefinite harm someone else won’t necessarily perform. How is requesting definite harm to an uninvolved party nice or right?

Everyone has moral agency to do the right thing here, and respecting that would be just.

The disabled disagree with you.

People overthink this: just linking the web as designed is not that hard & it doesn’t break everything like accessibility/usability, digging for context, etc.

I want Lemmy to do a better job than reddit at keeping fascists from being free to spread their poison.

What fascists? They’re rarely here.

Tankies, too? They’re already here.

• Enforcement of accessibility.
• No reddit-style moderation: the moderators at reddit are unaccountable tyrants.
• Minimal moderation preferably little more than legal compliance & accessibility/usability standards.
• Rejection of loaded reddit moderation concepts such as
  • brigading
  • sealioning
  • calling anything annoying harassment
• Freedom to openly criticize moderators.

You don’t think anyone trolling incels is female? That’s a poverty of imagination.

Then it would still be not nice (ie, patronizing & wrong) for the reasons stated in the rest of the message.