I mean America is a far-right hellhole at the moment, but Americans clearly don’t like that, and don’t like it with quite a bit more principle than Europeans don’t like their far-right clowns if the Fediverse is any indication (quite a big if to be fair, but one that seems to correspond to the facts). In any case, Fediverse Americans tend to be less willing to accept thinly veiled rightwing rhetoric than Fediverse Europeans.

Is it just that Europe is more active at this time than America or has the Fediverse been always been this xenophobic? I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Americans please help. That said, seeing the comment section as it is right now does wonders to explain the rise of the far-right.

Why would we expect Sweden to keep looking after him if we wouldn’t do the same?

For the same reason that, if person A punched person B’s child, we would expect person B not to punch person A’s child (though punching person A themself is fair game). Keeping or deporting this man and others like him doesn’t affect Britain in any significant way; its only “justification” here is spite* and that’s just not enough to uproot people from their home of 25 years. The idea that deporting people like this is somehow “returning the favor” to Britain ignores the human reality of what’s going on here. And it’s not like Sweden is just doing the obvious here; their rejection (and hence deportation) rate is 7 to 9 times the EU average.

*That’s the English-speaking internet’s justification; I’m sure the Swedish government with its far-right sympathies doesn’t need any justification other than xenophobia.

It’s not complicated.

It’s not complicated; it’s just ghoulish and inhumane. Why should the British voting public’s opinions affect the life of this person who hasn’t lived in Britain for decades? This isn’t even that novel of an idea; clearly essentially all EU countries other than Sweden understand this, hence Sweden being the only EU country with a two-digit percentage Brexit deportation rate. I mean hell, if Bulgaria can only deport 5 people out of 16 thousand then it’s clearly not “not complicated.”

This one is bottom-up pressure most likely. MAGA already hates vaccines so Trump is throwing them a bone since he can’t actually follow up on any of his non-fascist promises.

So long as copyright is being enforced at the individual level for consumers, large corporations shouldn’t be allowed to get away with infringing on it for profit.

Sure, but my conclusion from that isn’t “IP law should be enforced on the big corporations too;” it’s “IP law should be abolished and also down with capitalism.” Why should I want an unjust law to be enforced even more vigorously?

I mean germanium and thorium are, so that’s not much indication.

Yeah that’s the thing: I don’t believe it’s wrong to profit from people’s content without their permission, because I don’t believe they own that content after they share it with humanity and I absolutely don’t believe they should get to enforce that “ownership” via state violence. Everyone should get to use anything they want in derivative works, whether for profit or not. The fact that this could plausibly affect people’s livelihoods (but IMO wouldn’t; if there were significant profits in IP “theft” corporations would already be doing it) is a failure of capitalism and frankly not the reproducer’s business.

I mean, a key element of the anti-AI movement is that AI “steals” art, but I fundamentally believe in that art (and ideas) can’t be owned and therefore can’t be stolen. Ditto for code or what have you.

The data theft is another story, but there’s clearly an IP theft angle to anti-AI arguments, as seen in the other person response.

Such a pro-AI position also ignores the enormous amount of theft that these tools are built on.

Or, less likely, it could be that person knows and just doesn’t care. I certainly don’t because I believe intellectual property is bullshit.

Gee, you think?!

So you don’t have an effective caste system (see: Japan and East Jerusalem). Citizenship is essentially a statement from the government entitling you to political rights and some civil rights; the fact that that’s something that even needs to be given is an affront to democracy.

I mean did citizenship even replace anything? AFAIK there wasn’t an analogous system before nation-states (and therefore modern citizenship).

Oh damn. I guess we just can’t have nice things.

That’s just a good thing overall assuming appropriate accessibility measures.

Even assuming that’s true (which it’s not; absolutely nothing about Wall Street is Christian), that’s not what theocracy is. Again, theocracy is rule by religious authorities; even religiously motivated decisions in the US are ultimately made by lay people with little to no input from actual Christian clergy. Put another way, de facto theocracy would be a church or group of churches acting as kingmakers and consistently steering policy. That’s not what’s going on; Christianity in US governance, when it appears (outside of Utah where the Mormon Church does wield significant political power), is a solidly bottom-up phenomenon that doesn’t go through or depend on particular religious leaders. Rule by and for Christians, assuming it’s the case in the US—which again it’s not; America is ruled by capital regardless of its religion—would be exactly what we’d expect since Christians make up a solid supermajority of the population of America. Calling America a theocracy would be like calling Singapore (or another competitive autocracy) a monarchy; it’s wrong in both kind and degree.

You’ve already gotten your answer, but also I mean at some point you gotta own your farts.

The thing is that conservatism is just support for established power structures, meaning it changes with time and place, while liberalism is a specific ideology/strain of ideologies. For example conservatism in 19th century America would’ve been pro-slavery, not limited government. Meanwhile in France conservatism would’ve been monarchist, and in early 20th century Europe it would’ve been monarchist or fascist. Besides, even in modern politics conservatism implies positions on race, sexuality and religion relations(among others) that are pretty illiberal. It’s only economic policy that overlaps, which makes sense because economically liberalism is pro-capital owners, conservatism is pro-the rich and powerful and right now the rich and powerful are all capital owners.

Nope, that’s what liberalism is. Americans (and Canadians) use “liberal” to refer to anyone left of center, but globally and historically liberalism refers to an ideology that promotes individual liberties, private property rights and free trade (anong other things) and posits that the sole purpose of government is to guarantee those things. This means that on the modern political spectrum, “pure” liberalism would be center-right, with varying amounts of leftwing influence spanning the spectrum from center-right to center-left. Canada’s Liberal Party definitely fits.