Edit: What do you judge them for?
Big lifted truck with spacers, no tow hitch, and a perfect unlined bed. Why the fuck do you have a big shiny truck and flake on your promise to help your friend move because you don’t want to scratch your precious unlined bed. I’ve had more luck asking a rando with a squarebody Chevy and made an even better better friend.
It’s not judgement so much as a red flag, but those sunglasses that are like a solid cylinder wrapping around your head. They’re popular with manosphere dudebros, which is unfortunate because I actually kind of like them.
Lifted pickups that I know cost more than a modest house. It’s the same as buying a sports car, except you’re also posing as a humble working man simultaneously.
A MAGA hat. I judge them for MAGA.
Cigarettes
deleted by creator
Arc’teryx (hardshell) jackets.
If you’re walking around downtown you don’t need it. If you actually needed it you wouldn’t be wearing your expensive gear downtown.
This is a german thing, but “Camp David” shirts are the first thing that come to mind. There is a good possibility the person wearing it is the most dense and arrogant person you’ll ever meet.
Könnt ihr doch sicher bestätigen Germanbros, oder?
Oh dear Lord I’m literally wearing one of them! Just bought a couple a few years back, coz they looked durable and comfy! Is this a very general stereotype? I’m gonna have to leave them home when I’m visiting
Camp David = the weird but friendly Boomer neighbour that turns full racist after three beers.
“Oh awesome, nice Tool shirt. What’s your favorite track?”
Oh, I’ve never listened to them
seeeeeeeeeeeethe
Really really long fake nails. Less judgement and more confusion I suppose. How do you do normal everyday activities?? I’m baffled
my sister wears these and i guess all i can say to your question is “very carefully.” she gets ones with cool designs on them so i guess i understand the hype, would never personally wear em tho. cant even stand normal nail polish on my nails cuz i get the urge to peel them off immediately :(
The brand “hood rich”
Every scum bag I’ve known drapes themselves in hood rich.
Cybertrucks
Anything clearly expensive = fucking idiot
I must say this seems a bit shallow…
There is a saying in my country - I am not rich enough to buy cheap stuff.
This means that buying cheap stuff, which usually has poor quality, means you need to pay more to either buy new cheap stuff when it breaks or pay for repairs or maintenance. An expensive item would probably pay itself off and be cheaper in the long term simply due to better quality.
There’s a difference between quality and a Gucci bag made in the same factory as a 50 dollar bag the exact same way, though. Or anything like precious metals and jewels.
I have never seen rich people wearing the fake rich brands you see having shops in the expensive parts of the city.
Yeah, expensive shit that looks just like normal shit is a real phenomenon, it’s not just Succession. Although that’s also dumb. Prada is for people dumb enough to buy Prada.
MAGA hat
Blue line American Flag sticker/apparel, especially if it’s set inside the Punisher logo.
Cops most of all, tells me they’re not only an asshole but an asshole who doesn’t even know what Frank Castle is all about despite rocking the logo
For real. I’m willing to bet most don’t even know it’s from the Punisher, they just like it because it’s a skull, or because they saw the word “Punisher” on the sales tag and thought that was cool.
I really love how there’s one conservative going through the comments and ascribing a solitary downvote to any mention of conservative values, like trucks, crosses, Cybertrucks (cause it’s super specific) and the like.
Hey asshole. How does it feel to be part of a community that hates your fucking guts?
I feel you— but also what does this declaration of hate garner us? Is it anything beyond the base tribalistic fervor: “we are strong fear us”. It makes sense if we were in person— but I fear this is how we create silos.
If there are conservatives here, and we continually assault them directly then perhaps they’ll leave— and while personally I may feel that would make the discourse more favorable, they do not disappear; they leave and find a more homogeneous pasture. We shouldn’t isolate ourselves lest we contribute to make debate a toxic no man’s land.
Do not try to humanize those who are clearly evil and evil for the sake of evil because they are psychopaths who delight in the suffering of others.
Do not humanize these fucking animals. They are not “conservatives”; they are fucking NAZIS.
I generally want good things for all people. However, modern conservatives in my neck of the woods have grown increasingly vile over the course of my lifetime. I like the idea that they might feel isolated because the ideas they champion are backward and negative. And because they seemingly delight in causing harm to others, especially groups who have less power.
The paradox of tolerance relies on a lot of assumptions that don’t really work in reality. We don’t tend to see more open societies have more intolerance, quite the opposite. Part of the problem is that “the intolerant” is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other. And those who are intolerant towards the intolerant are themselves part of the intolerant.
For a less-political example, let’s imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux. However, some people who absolutely hate linux show up and start posting anti-linux memes. These people get insulted, downvoted, and eventually banned by others on Lemmy, because they’re showing intolerance towards linux.
But then what happens to those anti-linux people? They go off and created their own forums, and talk about how intolerant lemmy is to people who don’t use linux. So whenever a linux user shows up on those forums, they’re inevitably banned. The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there’s no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.
Now imagine an alternative - instead of banning the anti-linux people, pro-linux lemmy users decide to engage with them and correct misconceptions about linux. After all, linux, like many other topics, can get kind of complicated, and linux users need to remember that not everyone has the same background knowledge that they do about the topic. Sure, some linux haters would be persistent, but maybe others would be like “hey, these linux folks are actually kind of cool and helpful, I want to be more like them.” That may sound idealistic, but I think that’s a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.
I appreciate the detailed comment and example scenario, but I don’t agree with the reasoning or the conclusion.
For a less-political example, let’s imagine hypothetically that Lemmy is very pro-linux.
Lol. Yes, hypothetically.
I don’t think this non-political example works as an analogy, because: 1. there isn’t a moral component to it (or not as much of a moral imperative), 2. the percentage of the populace that hates Linux doesn’t have much of an impact on the functioning of society, and 3. the target of the hate here isn’t a person or class of people that, you know, has the right to exist.
The reason I’m drawing that line is because the whole idea behind being intolerant of intolerance is because doing the opposite allows the intolerance to spread unchecked and fuck up society, having a very real negative impact on the targeted people. (And not, like, an OS.)
Part of the problem is that “the intolerant” is not a single group, but many groups that hate each other.
This is the difference between the political and non-political examples. In the Nazi vs. anti-Nazi example, one of those groups is absolutely morally right and therefore we should do everything we can to stamp out the intolerance. In the Linux vs. anti-Linux example, ehh, it is closer to a matter of opinion—or at least a lower-impact moral question.
It’s about cost-benefit, right? Like, what’s the cost to society if Nazi propaganda goes unchecked? Lives lost, people deported, families broken, etc. Seems pretty important then to pay the “cost” of not tolerating Nazis. But what’s the cost to society of anti-Linux propaganda goes unchecked? Costlier computers? More inefficient companies due to vendor lock-in and security issues? Maybe more state surveillance? It’s not good, but it’s nowhere near the same level as with the Nazi thing.
The result of intolerance of the intolerant is that they remain intolerant, and now the tolerant have become hard to distinguish from them, and there’s no way for pro-linux forces to be part of the conversation anti-linux people are having - allowing them to create their own culty filter bubble.
The culty bubble is going to exist regardless. The question is whether we let it infect everything else it touches.
That may sound idealistic, but I think that’s a lot closer to what we see in reality - intolerance thrives in closed off spaces, and dies in open ones.
It only dies in open ones if you shoot it down at every opportunity. But if you engage with it and allow the intolerant to do their “I’m just asking questions” sealioning, then it just metastasizes.
