I would think that those types are better suited to research or other medical professions that don’t interact with patients like imaging or something.

Oops, wrong arachnid. You are indeed correct.

I don’t reject relationships with other people, but I think they should be between independent individuals who associate with each other only because they both want to. (Violating this principle is sometimes necessary but always undesirable.) You appear to think otherwise, and I suppose that’s a fundamental value difference that can’t be resolved through debate

I also believe in autonomy, but everyone has relationships with people they did not choose to associate with due entirely to unavoidable circumstance. This doesn’t just apply to family, but to everyone on earth to varying degrees. You are just as dependent on community as you are dependent on nature, a complex web of relationships of which you are a small part. Refusing to acknowledge that these relationships exist because you did not choose to enter them is childish, and it enables you to behave selfishly because you do not take responsibility for your externalities. This is the same pitfall that capitalists dive into to justify pollution and all manner of horrible things.

The bunker-building impulse demonstrates what’s wrong with libertarianism very well, an irrational attachment to individualism in all things. Libertarians refuse to acknowledge the positive role of nature and community in their lives, instead focusing on the negatives and spending all their energy fighting the very thing that keeps them alive. How long do you think you can last alone in a bunker without any support?

It’s a vinegaroon, which a lot of people may recognize as the poor creature that mad-eye moody demonstrates the cruciatus curse on in Harry Potter.

Edit: was wrong, it’s actually a tailless whip scorpion that got tortured by crazy eyes.

Silicon Valley techno-libertarians (a group I identify with)

I hate to break it to you but these are definitely the worst ones. It’s what the Gadsden flag waving canned food and gun hording preppers turn into if they end up with tons of money. These are the morons that build bunkers in New Zealand and try to brainstorm ways to keep their post-apocalyptic security guards loyal to them with remote-detonated bomb collars or holding their families hostage.

The idea of preventing private ownership and rent-seeking of communication platforms is.

Why are you so intent on keeping the conversation about the election? I’m trying to tell you your time and energy is better spent on other things. It’s unproductive to respond to people complaining about how all our candidates support genocide by basically telling them to shut up and choose.

I respect it but if you’re American and trying to take the word back, I’m afraid you’re a little too late. It’s a political party now and they’re all-in on corporatism.

Lemmy is an inherently libertarian platform

This is an interesting perception, because if you mean American libertarianism then this doesn’t really make sense. Lemmy’s creators are communist and intended it to be anti-corporate. It is designed in a decentralized manner specifically to avoid situations where companies can own and profit from it.

The kinds of platforms I would see as being libertarian (in the American sense) are the diaspora of privately owned social media companies.

Electoral politics are not the only way to change things. In fact, it’s a very poor way, as evidenced by the fact that genocide is now the only option. Every bit of progress that’s been made has been achieved through mass movements; protesting, coalition building, engaging in direct action or civil disobedience… until the politicians are forced to appease them in order to keep hold of their power. Would electoral politics have ended segregation, were it not for the civil rights movement? Would women have been granted the right to vote, were it not for the suffragette movement?

You would not recognize the reality we’d be living in today if everyone from back then thought like you that all they can do about injustice is vote for the “lesser evil.”

My take? Vote your conscience, or not at all if that’s where your conscience leads you. I can’t bring myself to fault anyone for refusing to vote for a “lesser evil”. At the end of the day, electoral politics just isn’t worth the amount of time and energy people give to it. That time and energy is better spent engaging in direct action, community building, and just general activism. I have long been disillusioned that electoral politics can bring about meaningful progress.

Would you prefer more or less genocide.

That this is the choice our “elected representatives” are asking us to make is sick beyond measure. I actually want to just thank you for cutting the bullshit and just asking the question directly so I can respond to it in the way any sane person should, by rejecting the premise that these are our only options. The answer is no, not more or less, none. I acknowledge that the third option of no genocide is not achievable through electoral means, which is why I support the protests, encampments, and uncommitted delegates.

This is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that Allende choosing reform over revolution is what resulted in the US interference. The US has been known to interfere in revolutionary movements as well.

Why can’t my state be near the top of a good list for once.

https://www.letswatchstartrek.com/tng-episode-guide/

Less left leaning than liberal? Are you suggesting the EFF is conservative?

For starters, all liberals have Reddit and Lemmy.world, which are large. Where do leftists have?

I agree that lemmy.world is a primarily liberal instance, but I haven’t seen the same level of censorship on lemmy.world as I have on hexbear, though I’m open to evidence to the contrary. You can create a space for a specific ideology without resorting to such an extreme level of censorship and lemmy.world is proof of that. Also see my home instance slrpnk.net, we’re a primarily anarchist instance and we haven’t had to resort to extreme censorship to achieve that.

Secondly, this comment is indistinguishable from concern-trolling. I’d have to read through your post history or go back and forth with you to know if you were an honest actor or just a troll.

By what method do you distinguish concern-trolling from legitimate concern? Concern-trolls generally want to shut down discussion, and the whole reason for my concern is that censorship shuts down discussion.

Thirdly, most of us know your views, and have rejected them.

They’re not my views, did you miss the part of my comment where I said I disagree with the comments that got them banned?

We don’t live in a tame world, lots of people have deeply problematic viewpoints. When someone who expresses such viewpoints is otherwise well-intentioned it’s better to address them directly and potentially change some minds (or at least plant the seed) than to shun them and further entrench them into a problematic worldview.

I disagree with those comments, but they seem pretty mild to have been banned. I just don’t see how it’s productive to ban all liberals the moment they try to explain their views. All that does is push people away who could potentially have been a future ally.