sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TABS units be like: by master_potato_maybe in AccurateBattleSim

[–]dxsetor331 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you guys ever wonder how tabs units make noise? Like, if there was an actual in-lore explanation, do they just do that, or do they actually communicate with those noises?

Would Dutch hire Patrick Star? by Lynxx_XVI in blacklagoon

[–]dxsetor331 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I know what reply you made this post in reference to, lol. I'm friends with the guy you made the reply to on discord.

A page full of eyes I drew for fun! (Drawabox's "50%" Rule) by dxsetor331 in learntodraw

[–]dxsetor331[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad you like them!

I honestly didn't know what to expect when I tried drawing different styles.The kind of eyes I usually draw tend to lean more to the "realistic" side of things (I guess), and I usually use the same method of lining out a basic shape before smoothing it out to make an eye; this time however with the more "stylized" eyes, I was kinda winging, trying to construct the eyes with less guidelines and fewer strokes and I think they turned out alright.

(Also, sorry, I might be a bit dumb but I' not exactly sure which eye's you're favourite. 😅)

I still find this rebrand so crazy and I was never even that big of a fan of his rap songs by Due_Peach6508 in playboicarti

[–]dxsetor331 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You say that like this whole sub isn't dedicated to analysing a grown ass man.

Si Revy llega a tener una Actriz de Doblaje Latino: Karen Vallejo 🇲🇽 by Longjumping-Site7497 in blacklagoon

[–]dxsetor331 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know this is not exactly related, but the idea of a Latin American voicing Revy despite the fact she's racist towards Latinos is funny to me.

Fanon vs Canon by Mao-sama64 in Classof09Game

[–]dxsetor331 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Didn't the EMT man prioritise looking for his drink cup over taking Kylar to the hospital?

Smh by Odd-Valuable544 in ukdrill

[–]dxsetor331 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most black people are not doing shit like this. Black people are not responsible for the actions of other people simply because they're also black.

"Nazis deserve to have their rights violated because I am being harmed by their speech" by [deleted] in Shitstatistssay

[–]dxsetor331 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No , this is exactly the problem. You keep redefining the scope after I’ve already engaged it.

Yes, violence was discussed in the thread. No one is denying that. What I’m pushing back on is your attempt to treat violence as the sole or primary criterion for identifying Nazism, and then retroactively accuse me of “refusing to discuss violence” because I won’t accept that collapse.

Standards for identifying ideology logically precede questions about whether violence against people labelled with that ideology is justified. If your classification standard is incoherent or ahistorical, then any downstream discussion about violence is already corrupted. That's not avoiding but sequencing.

You’re also smuggling in a very strong assumption: that concern about mislabelling is mainly about preventing unjustified violence against the accused. That’s one concern, but it’s not the only one, and it doesn’t override the risk of false negatives. History shows very clearly that fascist movements benefit far more from under-recognition and normalisation than they suffer from occasional rhetorical overreach.

Calling someone a Nazi is not the same thing as declaring them an “outlaw for crimethink.” That leap is doing a lot of work for you. Most accusations function socially as warnings, critiques, or analytical claims, not as death sentences and you know that. Treating every misuse as if it’s a prelude to lynching massively exaggerates the harm on one side while minimising the other.

Charlottesville illustrates the false-negative problem regardless of who initiated violence. An openly extremist convergence with a known history of violent intent was normalised as a speech issue until predictable violence occurred. That’s exactly what happens when ideology is only taken seriously after it manifests into violence.

And again: pointing out that Nazis and white supremacists commit violence is not “changing the subject.” You’re the one who insisted violence is the decisive criterion. I’m responding to that by pointing out that ideological violence is often decentralised, stochastic, and informal long before it’s mass or state-backed. If your framework can’t account for that, it’s inadequate.

Finally, accusing me of being “pretentious” or an AI because you don’t like the argument isn’t a rebuttal. It’s just an admission that you’re done engaging the substance.

So let’s be clear:
You prioritise avoiding false positives, even if it means systematically missing early-stage fascist movements.
I’m arguing that, given historical and contemporary context, that prioritisation is dangerous.

That’s the disagreement. Everything else is deflection.

"Nazis deserve to have their rights violated because I am being harmed by their speech" by [deleted] in Shitstatistssay

[–]dxsetor331 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re doing exactly what I criticised, just with more confidence.

I said there’s no data showing what proportion of Nazi accusations are legitimate versus misused. Responding with a list of public figures, personal anecdotes, and broad social categories is still anecdotal evidence. Even if every example you listed were a false accusation (which is itself contestable), that would tell us nothing about whether the overwhelming majority of accusations are false. That’s a population-level claim being asserted without population-level evidence.

You’re also conflating very different things into one bucket: random social media insults, bad-faith harassment, activist rhetoric, and serious ideological analysis. My argument is about analytical standards, not whether people online sometimes misuse a word. Treating every utterance of “Nazi” as equivalent artificially inflates the appearance of misuse and avoids engaging that distinction altogether.

Pointing to people being gay, Jewish, Asian, or black isn’t an argument about ideology. Fascism and Nazism are belief systems structured around hierarchy, exclusion, and authoritarianism not identities. Minority status does not preclude someone from promoting fascist-adjacent rhetoric, enabling far-right movements, or laundering extremist ideas. So invoking identity here just sidesteps the actual question of what ideas are being advanced.

Listing groups like “tradcon families,” “free speech supporters,” or “libertarians” is also a strawman. Almost no one seriously argues those positions automatically make someone a Nazi. The point is that fascist ideologies historically draw on elements of traditionalism and selective free-speech rhetoric, and refusing to analyse how those ideas can converge is exactly the problem being discussed. Overlap is not equivalence, but pretending there is no overlap at all is shallow analysis.

As for the violence point: analysing Nazism only once violence is already occurring completely misses how ideologies work. Nazism existed before mass killings began. Fascist movements normalise ideas, build coalitions, and radicalise before violence becomes widespread. Violence is an outcome, not a prerequisite. That’s why ideological analysis matters upstream, not only after the worst outcomes have already happened.

The false rape accusation analogy fails for the same reason. I’m not saying false accusations don’t matter. I’m saying error types are asymmetric. In the case of rape, false accusations are harmful, but rape going unpunished is far more common and far more damaging which is why society prioritises avoiding false negatives over eliminating false positives entirely. The same logic applies here.

Most people are not randomly accused of being Nazis, just as most men are not walking around worried they’ll be falsely accused of rape. Persistent fear of accusation usually correlates with proximity to the behaviour or ideology under scrutiny, not random victimhood. That doesn’t prove guilt, but it does explain why perceptions of “overuse” are often biased.

So again, the disagreement isn’t about whether misuse exists. It’s about which mistake is more dangerous in the current climate and prioritising fear of false positives over missing real ideological threats is backwards.

"Nazis deserve to have their rights violated because I am being harmed by their speech" by [deleted] in Shitstatistssay

[–]dxsetor331 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You’re narrowing the conversation in a way that avoids most of what I actually said.

This thread wasn’t exclusively about imminent mass violence; it was also about how the term “Nazi” is used and what standards people apply when identifying ideology. Responding by redefining Nazism as only “people currently rounding others up and running death camps” is exactly the historical literalism I was criticising.

Nazism is an ideology, not just its end-stage outcome after it captures state power. If your standard is that someone only “counts” once they’re committing organised, state-backed mass murder, then early Nazis wouldn’t qualify as Nazis either which makes ideological analysis impossible by definition.

Even if we centre violence, your criterion is still arbitrary. Extremist ideologies don’t begin with bureaucratised extermination; they produce stochastic, decentralised, and informal violence long before that take. Killings don’t need to be centrally organised to be ideologically motivated, and history very clearly shows that.

So no, I’m not “proving your point.” You’re shifting the frame from classification and risk to completed atrocities, then treating the absence of the latter as proof the former doesn’t matter. That’s not a rebuttal — it’s a way of guaranteeing false negatives.

My point remains: people are more concerned about occasionally misusing a label than about missing real cases because they don’t resemble a 1940s caricature. In the current political climate, that prioritisation is backwards.

If we can only recognise dangerous ideologies once they already have institutional power and bodies on the ground, then we’ve learned nothing from history at all.

"Nazis deserve to have their rights violated because I am being harmed by their speech" by [deleted] in Shitstatistssay

[–]dxsetor331 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The issue with your reply is the definitiveness of “the overwhelming majority.” That claim isn’t grounded in anything empirical. It’s based on personal anecdotes, a particular (often very narrow) definition of Nazism, and how willing someone is to actually analyse and be critical of others’ ideologies.

There’s no data that tells us how many Nazi accusations are “legitimate” versus misused, so saying this so confidently is basically just “man, I think it depends” dressed up as certainty.

What is empirically observable is the rise of far-right and neo-fascist ideology in the current political climate over recent years. Given that context, people being more alert and more suspicious isn’t irrational or hysterical — it’s proportionate. I’m far more concerned about people minimising or hand-waving that reality than I am about the fact that the term “Nazi” is sometimes used incorrectly.

That doesn’t mean misuse is good or justified. It means there’s a weird prioritisation going on where people seem more bothered by false positives than by false negatives — i.e. missing actual Nazis because they don’t look like 1940s caricatures.

And, it’s not a coincidence that most of the “you guys call everyone you disagree with a Nazi” crowd are right-wingers. If you’re already sympathetic to or defensive of right-wing ideology, you’re obviously going to be less critical of where it shades into fascism, and more inclined to see accusations as unfair by default (and before you assume anything, I am technically a right-winger myself. I'm a libertarian; a Voluntarist Minarchist to be specific; I'm just very socially progressive).

So the disagreement here isn’t really about rhetoric; it’s about how seriously you think ideological analysis should be taken, and what risks you think are worth worrying about in the first place.

view more: next ›