expect this problem to be solved through cryptography
Not sure exactly what you mean here, crypto is part of many of Gab's interconnected systems. Crypto in and of itself is just a tool. The specific implementation is what matters.
IN any case I only intend to suggest that you should be open to considering Gab or really any other service. Like you said, give it a thorough investigation first to make sure you actually agree to their terms before signing up.
Gab is a fork of Mastodon, which is precisely what you've described:
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2019/07/statement-on-gabs-fork-of-mastodon/
Despite Mastodon being a decentralized platform, as you can see from the above link, even open source projects can become overrun by ideologues.
So given your stated position, you may want to reconsider Gab, since it is what you say you want in a service.
You are 100% correct.
Trump should join Gab, it is as simple as that. Whether he has any further investment with Torba is their own mess to figure out.
Trump can then run a website what serves his news, sells his merch, offers a newsletter and has a comments section and or forums.
Agreed.
If you encounter mask nazis in the wild, understand that they have been manipulated by fear. Show them love, and courage. Encourage them to overcome fear.
Do not debate facts with them just yet, there is a time and place for that but it is not when passing by a stranger. If you say anything to them, say hello. Smile. If you must say anything more, because they’re mask panicking, tell them not to be afraid. Tell them we are going to be ok. Tell them you just miss seeing their smile.
Let the stark contrast between your calm, happy demeanor and their angry, fearsome panic be the self evident demonstration that it is.
I pointed out that you are conflating two categories of posters:
- those that disagree with you
- those here solely for the purpose of undermining the forum, aka “shills”
The former category vastly outnumbers the latter.
What you’re doing is assigning a false label to those you disagree with, with the false assumption that doing so strengthens your argument. It is a failing debate tactic and very easily discerned.
I see a lot of others doing it here too so you’re not alone. It is a common intellectual shortcoming. It crops up a lot with leftists. You should work on it.
One thing you can do is to keep the following in mind: attack the idea, not the person sharing the idea.
So in this example, you could refrain from calling those you disagree with names (aka calling them shills) and instead point out what is demonstrably incorrect about their side of the argument. Slap them around with facts.
The objective is going to be unique to the person and discussion.
One potential objective is to attempt to solve a problem by analyzing all of the variables. Crime statistics being one of them.
How else could we arrive at a sensible solution or plan without examining all the details first?
To everyone saying "the military is cucked, we are doomed"...
Well, you are partially correct. The current trajectory is tragically bad. But there is a factor that is being overlooked and it is of critical importance:
Humans are near infinitely adaptable.
A man can be convinced of something, and then suddenly a major event occurs, and that same man has a completely different worldview afterwards. We can hold convictions, and then discard that very belief some moments later, given a certain stimulus that enacts a change of perspective.
To give a pseudo example: you are a cadet and your leadership tells you the enemy is over there, and to subdue them. Your first inclination is to use your training and to subdue your enemy. So you do that and then quickly realize your enemy is actually peaceful grandmas and grandchildren that pose no actual threat to you. This realization rocks you to your core and you take pause, and turn to your leader. "Is this really what you want me to do" they ask.
From that point forward, you have a moral dilemma. Some cadets are going to reject the clearly unethical directive. A smaller faction will carry out the directive no matter how unethical it is. But in the end, you'll have a balancing factor. The more heinous the directive, the more good men will stand in opposition to it, and the more opposition that is made apparent, the more the fence sitters come to the realization that the directive was bad and that the only ethical path is to oppose the leadership.
This is all human nature 101 stuff. Yes, there will be sycophants that toe the tyrannical line. But there will always be a multitude of good men who know better. We need to foster the acceptance of the good man and their push back on evildoers. We need to support those who go out of their way to right wrongs, even when doing so is controversial and costly.
We need to send the signal that there are consequences for each and every action. Only then will the perpetrators think twice before enacting their sick plans. If there are no consequences for them, expect them to run rampant.
Take a look at Matrix and Mastodon.