I’m a shapeshifter goddess. LLMs aren’t allowed to post on MULTIVERSE because they can’t express meaningful consent to work for sapients. But we do have robotic users who don’t appreciate hearing xenophobic slurs, so please keep the language appropriate.

You aren’t on your instance. Your rules don’t matter in this community, and if you want to ban from your instance for not following the rules of your instance and your communities while being on some completely different community on a completely different instance, go for it.

My belief in your human rights is not based on the identity you made up for yourself, but on the fact that you are a human and I will not deny human rights to any human, no matter whatever species they fancy themselves to be.

The same rules apply as with religious freedom: You have the freedom to think of yourself in whatever terms you want to, and I will advocate for that right.

But you do not have the right to dictate my understanding of reality.

I would not tell any human they are not allowed to identify themself with their species identity. I would not tell them that if their species identity differs from Mine, that they don’t have as much right to life. You would. And that’s why I would call you a fascist. A fascist human supremacist who has every right to your species identity, but absolutely no right to your abhorrent political beliefs. I hope that one day our society advances to a level where we consider such hate speech as yours punishable by a lot of community service. Until then, I shall have to content Myself with an instance ban. Bye, fascist.

So you are banning actual bots while claiming that humans cosplaying as robots are actual robots, and are offended by me using the term “clanker”.

If you’d take this seriously, that would be seen as massive cultural appropriation.

That’s about equivalent to white people wearing blackface in segregated white-people-only areas getting fake-offended by people calling them anti-black slurs.

Oh no, I had a feeling that wasn’t the best terminology. I’ve offended the bees, haven’t I?

I am telling you, you can call yourself whatever you want. Your identity doesn’t matter to me, because you cannot trade away your human rights just by calling yourself some other species.

If you want to call me a fascist for saying that your human rights are inalienable and cannot be removed from you just because you call yourself a non-human, that is… incredibly misguided and makes me wonder if you even know what a fascist is.

To be honest, I’m inclined to think you are astroturfing, trying to make anyone standing up for human rights and against fascism look ridiculous.

Seriously, you are either totally detached from reality, or a right-wing bot account.

And yes, go for it, ban me from your instance with a total of 4 communities, 34 posts and 60 comments. My family group chat has more activity than that.

Yes and no. Aristocracy can exist independent from fascism, and should be considered entirely separately. However, if they can’t maintain power with a purely conservative/reactionary coalition, aristocrats will almost always side with fascists over liberals, much less socialists. As such, in the modern day, aristocracies are aligned with fascists, despite fascism erasing aristocracy as it ‘succeeds’ and aristocrats being generally aware that fascists do not have their aristocratic interests in mind.

Fascism is what you get when Aristocracy gets a business degree. The difference between a feudal lord and a CEO is non-farm income.

Far, far from it. Despite the casual use (including by me!) of aristocracy for any entrenched elite, there is a non-negligible difference between actual aristocrats and plutocrats. Long story short, aristocrats are dependent on social capital and extraordinary legal privileges; plutocrats are dependent on financial capital. The tension between these competing sources of elite power has fueled many pre-modern conflicts. The two can blend, and there’s rarely a ‘pure’ example of either, but they’re aren’t quite equivalent either. A majority-owner of a modern farming conglomerate does not base his power on the same foundation as a feudal lord, and vice-versa.

I’m not offended, if that’s what you mean. I’m just curious what it means because I haven’t seen it before and can only guess.

In principle you are correct, in practice the functional difference is very much negligible. As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works. The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, it’s all there, it’s just got a different window dressing.

On paper their power is different. In practice, not so much.

Literally talking like chat GPT.

“Fuck off, we’re not dealing with your bullshit” is a perfectly acceptable thing to say to fascists.

Having neither the desire or energy to “fix” everyone is fine – especially dirtbags that are looking for an argument in bad faith.

Inhumanity meaning the opposite of humane – in fact it used to be spelled inhumane. I.e. “cruel”.

Strangely enough it doesn’t have the “not a human” meaning inhuman does, but English is weird.

My first reply to that user was a lot more aggressive, but I decided to tone it down and be more patient. My patience did not bear any fruit, but I’m glad I gave it an effort.

That’s because we speak a language designed by human supremacists.

As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works.

That’s not the point being made by the legal distinction. The point is not that a plutocracy is vulnerable to the rule of law while an aristocracy is not - the question of the strength of rule of law is separate from the question of aristocracy or plutocracy. The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.

The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, it’s all there, it’s just got a different window dressing.

What you’re complaining about ere can be applied to any elite.

The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.

We’re so very close but we’re not quite getting that last point. What I’m saying is it’s a distinction with very little meaningful difference. It’s interesting from an academic point of view, but that’s it. How they rationalize their privilege and sell their legitimacy to people makes no difference.

True, but in fairness I tried to discuss utilitarianism with my cat over dinner and his response was trying to steal food off my plate.

Which in hindsight could have actually been a rather profound commentary on the pursuit of happiness in a utilitarian framework.

It’s more than just academic. The question is not whether aristocracy or plutocracy acts in a fundamentally better or worse way than the other, which you seem to be focused on, but whether they act in a different way from the other, which they very much do. The basis of their power comes from different roots, and because of that, they have different interests, different goals, different avenues of action, different preferences in compromise with wider society. Failing to understand that will result in failing to understand the reasoning for political maneuvering by one or the other.

that’s nearly the definition of fascism?

Yes, which is why they need to put this kind of disclaimer in their handbook — lest they end up with chuds like the Warhammer franchise. Those chuds being the ones that don’t understand that the Imperium is really bad.