This was so awkward I had to check if you were joking but nope, actual conservative who got his feelings hurt and retaliated with the two most generic right-wing insults there are.

I could teach your entire personality to a bird.

Libertarians are mostly just neoliberals who are upset they’re not allowed to be more psycopathic.

Their new utopia will tear itself apart with greed, drugs and sex abuse just like all the old ones.

Pro-gun propaganda masqurading as life advice.

You openly admit that idiots and fascists have been armed, that you wouldn’t win a fight against any of them even with your guns, and that an armed population has done absolutely nothing to stop a fascist running for president.

Yet rather than fixing any of that, your solution is “everybody buy more guns even though it doesn’t work and funds fascists by proxy”.

I haven’t even gotten to ask what anti-drone measures they have.

The answer will be “none” because unless they’re ex-military, their entire contribution to any militia is usually “gun”.

Most of them wouldn’t pass fitness requirements nor take orders. Few of them have other skills such as first aid, communication tech or drone piloting.

Even when contributing their gun, you can’t assume they know how to safely and usefully handle a weapon, or that they’re mentally fit for combat, because none of that is a requirement for buying a gun.

It’s a hero fantasy they’ve literally never thought critically about, but it’s supposed to make all the mass shootings worth it.

I’ve listened to songs with suicidal lyrics, I’m not suicidal

A song with “suicidal lyrics” is not even remotely comparable to the albums this site sells, which is why they don’t need a dedicated pro-suicide website to sell them on.

Would you rush to defend an album put out by ISIS, that pushed the agenda of ISIS, with all profits going to ISIS?

It’s getting exhausting seeing people become increasingly unhinged and justifying it because “well, they’re baddies.”

Then maybe you should explain your exhaustion to the group responsible for their overwhelming majority of mass shootings, who openly celebrate the killing of black and LGBT+ people, rather than someone you’ve decided isn’t appropriately sad that neo-nazis got exposed for doing a thing they did.

You don’t need to be a fascist to make excuses for fascists, but it’s bizarre that you read my comment about all the apologists the decided “he just hasn’t heard my brilliant apologise yet”.

You can drop the “it could happen to you” act because it almost certainly won’t. For this site and those albums, “I just didn’t have time to unpick what the lyric ‘until every kike is dead’ meant” isn’t even a remotely plausible excuse.

Stop defending them.

Music is an extremely important part of my life but there isn’t a single band that would make me give money to neo-nazis.

I don’t know why everyone is so eager to absolve them. If they have something to say in their defense, they can say it themselves.

It doesn’t need to be profitable, let alone have every fraction of a cent squeezed from it.

The mothers may not even have been alive and medical staff simply can’t evacuate premature babies and all the ICU equipment needed to keep them alive.

This story is absolutely going to be used as “look how inhuman and barbarous these Palestinians are, good thing we’re genociding them” and your comment is exactly what they’re looking for.

But the reality is that if you shoot and bomb civilians, then threaten to bomb the hospital they’re being treated at, this could happen anywhere in the world.

They weren’t leaving babies to die and rot 6 months ago because they weren’t being shelled and shot at and if they weren’t being shelled and shot at now, they wouldn’t have left those babies either.

And to be logically consistent, do you also shame people for trying to remove things like child pornography, pornographic photos posted without consent or leaked personal details from the internet?

I consented to my post being federated and displayed on Lemmy.

Did writers and artists consent to having their work fed into a privately controlled system that didn’t exist when they made their post, so that it could make other people millions of dollars by ripping off their work?

The reality is that none of these models would be viable if they requested permission, paid for licensing or stuck to work that was clearly licensed.

Fortunately for women everywhere, nobody outside of AI arguments considers consent, once granted, to be both unrevokable and valid for any act for the rest of time.

Yeah it’s their fault for daring to communicate online without first considering a technology that didn’t exist.

Now delete your posts from ChatGPTs memory.

Exploding head syndrome only a beep? Brains do weird shit.

Then either make your comment and eat the downvotes or just don’t make the comment at all. You’re functionally complaining that a Facebook anti-vax group isn’t listening to your science.

Regardless, there is an important distinction.

You can argue all you like that political systems like communism and socialism may have lead to things like corruption, famine, wars and genocide but ultimately, the people who support those systems are seeking a fairer way to run society for all people and believe in it despite its history.

Head over to the far-right and the genocide is the point. They want “undesirables” to be killed, enslaved or completely repressed.

The user agent is in the request header, so it’s known before any response is sent from YouTube.

I don’t know if that’s what they’re doing, because it’s not possible to know what their server code is doing, making it a far better place to hide sleazy code.

You don’t need to look to the military either.

Coca-cola experimented with subliminal advertising to see if they could mind control people into buying their products but for some reason we think they wouldn’t stoop to manipulating social media, the Clockwork Orange reprogramming system that we pin our own eyelids open for.

I don’t know, nor am I speculating. The person I was replying to said they didn’t see a browser check in the code, which isn’t enough to dismiss it.

They don’t need to put incriminating “if Firefox” statements in their code – the initial page request would have included the user agent and it would be trivial to serve different JavaScript based on what it said.