I love homemade pizzas! Nice toppings. On the subject of toppings and price, if you do want something delicious and a bit more expensive: Fig & Prosciutto pizza.

• Flatbread
• Fig Spread + a little pizza sauce
• Fine shredded mozzarella
• Prosciutto

I do not know who these people are

There's something very sweet about the idea of someone with little to no capacity for emotions trying to learn how to show love

POV more like PIV amirite

POV* someone on lemmy is using POV incorrectly

* it's yours. You're the POV

Your definition doesn’t work for me, and you’re forcing your own concepts onto others [...] I clarified what I meant, and you are free to take it or leave it

No, I am not forcing you to use a definition, I am explaining what I meant and asking you what you meant so that I can better understand what you are saying. That is quite literally the opposite of forcing my concepts onto others; it is trying to understand how others are using a concept so that I can interpret what they are saying correctly.

I see no reason you could have this misunderstanding other than misreading my comment or arguing in bad faith. If you are not doing the latter, you may want to reread it with the above in mind; I rambled a bit but my point should be quite clear.

You seem very deeply concerned. Why is that?

If your definitions work for you, great! But they don’t really seem to be bringing you much peace. And you seem almost desperate to somehow prove my lived experience wrong to me directly with mere philosophical argument. Why is that? Do you know what motivates your response, and produced this confused, driven thing you wrote?

???

Not looking good for the "bad faith" allegations. I'm not even sure what most of this mess is referring to, and frankly I don't care to put much effort into untangling it, as what I have seen is a blatant misrepresentation of what I've said. You try to paint me as desparate, confused, and unreasonable, as if it will make you right or do anything but sustain a defensive sense of superiority. Clearly I have slighted you in some way; if you were serious about what you mean by forgiveness, would it not be best to simply move on from this conversation rather than obsessing over making me look bad by lying about what I've said?

I will not reply further.

Sat down for the glory of the empire

I figured you would not agree. I'm probably not going to change your mind on this in a forum thread if you don't see the same pattern that I do in the historical and recent examples. I do appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter so clearly though.

Capitalists do these things, yes. My point is that the Republican party is much more friendly to Capitalists and their policies and much more influenced by them.

And yet the other commenter was, in the same breath, telling me to “get over it” – literally to forgive, to abandon pursuing the debt he had created with his words.

Interesting that you would not allow me the same freedom of choice: to not forgive when that other commenter is verbally abusive toward me personally.

Uh... I never said you had to get over it. That was the other guy.

I also don't agree that "getting over it" and "forgiving" are the same thing-- to me, getting over it means to move past obsessing over a wrong, while forgiving means to... well, forgive the "debt" it has incurred, ie. treat the person as if they had not committed the wrong.

I realize now (due to another commenter in the thread) that you may be using slightly different definitions of "forgive", "get over it", "move past", "reconcile", etc. than I am. I am not purposely being disingenuous by thinking of these words differently.

I do disagree that it is unreasonable for me to assume that by "forgive" you meant to encourage reconciliation. Your original comment used language like (bolded):

As Abraham Lincoln famously said, there is more than one way to destroy an enemy. If you make him your friend, you have also destroyed your enemy.

For myself, I will gladly welcome anyone who has seen the error of their ways. It has been a BRUTAL fucking ten years and while the left is fine, I want ALL my American homies back.

These are all statements that indicate you intend to reconcile and renew relationships with the people you are telling the commenter to forgive. You don't necessarily say that they should do the same, but to someone like myself or (I presume) OP, who thinks of forgiveness as creating a state where there is no reason not to reconcile, it seems to be a suggestion.

So, to skip any further ambiguity, let me ask you: What exactly do you suggest when you say OP should forgive those who harmed them? To stop obsessing over the wrongs? To not pursue accountability or remediation for them if given the opportunity? To treat their relationships with those people as if those wrongs were not important, or to forget/ignore the wrongs entirely? To reconcile?

As a separate issue, it's pretty crazy imo to equate real social, financial, and oftentimes physical (not to the OP, but it happens to many lgbtq people in the south) harm done against one due to their identity, and someone getting mad at you on the internet for trying to get them to forgive those harms. This is basically the tolerance of intolerance "paradox", or the "I want to kill you"/"I disagree"/"I see no difference between you two" meme. If your meaning of forgiveness includes accepting the wrongs or exposing yourself to future wrongs, then:

1. People harmed OP (wrong)
2. You perpetuate that harm by telling OP to accept it and/or allow themselves to be harmed in the future (also wrong)
3. OP responded to you perpetuating that harm by defending themself (right!)

Of course, this depends on if you intended to tell OP to let themself be harmed, or if you just wanted to tell them to stop obsessing over past harm; if it's the latter, then you did not do anything wrong and so OP attacking you was not justified. My point here is that attacking you is right if it's justified, and wrong if it's not; it's not always wrong to attack someone, so you can't assume OP and the people who hurt him are equally wrong simply because they were both hostile. The reason for that hostility is the sole determiner of its morality.

I'll take a look when I have time, thanks

the drive for fascism is related to the ability for the capitalist class to continue to effectively control the population

You mean like through the media, where republicans are less truthful, own the means to control what news people see, and intervene (as on Twitter and Facebook) to prevent certain information from spreading? Or how Ronald Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine and vetoed its reinstatement?

Or do you mean through economic means, where republicans push to keep costs high for the poor and low for the rich (healthcare, tariffs, tax policy)?

Or maybe directly through force, like with ICE or historical examples like President Harding taking the side of the mining companies in the battle of blair mountain?